It's Always About Transparency

[Annie]

Eventually everything does come out, but science isn't supposed to be this way:

DailyTech - Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 25, 2011 5:12 PM

...

While so many are screaming about the 'skeptics' ignoring science, the problem has more to do with trusting what's coming out on climate.

 

[konradv]

Eventually everything does come out, but science isn't supposed to be this way:

DailyTech - Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 25, 2011 5:12 PM

...

While so many are screaming about the 'skeptics' ignoring science, the problem has more to do with trusting what's coming out on climate.

Why should we trust your interpretation of what was said? If someone STOLE your off-the-cuff comments and broadcast them worldwide, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Then to top it all off, the skeptics totally misinterpret the content because..., they're REALLY the ones pushing a poltical agenda and pretending those reacting to their tactics are the real culprits. Nice try denierbot, sell your worn out theories elsewhere.

 

[Annie]

Eventually everything does come out, but science isn't supposed to be this way:

DailyTech - Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 25, 2011 5:12 PM

...

While so many are screaming about the 'skeptics' ignoring science, the problem has more to do with trusting what's coming out on climate.

Why should we trust your interpretation of what was said? If someone STOLE your off-the-cuff comments and broadcast them worldwide, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Then to top it all off, the skeptics totally misinterpret the content because..., they're REALLY the ones pushing a poltical agenda and pretending those reacting to their tactics are the real culprits. Nice try denierbot, sell your worn out theories elsewhere.

There was no political agenda, the topic was scientists. There was no mention of alternative theories. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's taking words literally. It's silencing of others being able to replicate, by not including all data. That those who consider themselves 'enlightened' and find no problems with these scientists, you are living in a dream world.

 

[IanC]

konradv- the Team complained that the first batch of emails were taken out of context. this second batch gives context to the first, and itis even worse than we thought. have you even read any of the email streams? if you have I find it hard to believe that you trust the climategate principals, or much of their work, and especially the whitewash investigations that should have found this incriminating evidence before the whistleblower had to release a new batch of emails.

 

[Annie]

I wonder if the Kon will read this devastating piece that clarifies why the second batch is likely to cause more fallout than the 2009 batch?

Climategate (Part II) | The Weekly Standard

 

[Old Rocks]

But the Goddamned glaciers and ice caps just keep melting. The Ocean continues to get more acidic. And you idiots keep trying to deny reality in any way possible. Looks like 2011 will go down as the tenth warmest year on record. In spite of the fact it was a year of a very strong La Nina, and low TSI.

Sorry, but manufactured scandals are all you have.

 

[westwall]

But the Goddamned glaciers and ice caps just keep melting. The Ocean continues to get more acidic. And you idiots keep trying to deny reality in any way possible. Looks like 2011 will go down as the tenth warmest year on record. In spite of the fact it was a year of a very strong La Nina, and low TSI.

Sorry, but manufactured scandals are all you have.

Are you stomping your feet and jumping up and down? You act like these things have never happened before! What a sad shill you are.

 

[Annie]

But the Goddamned glaciers and ice caps just keep melting. The Ocean continues to get more acidic. And you idiots keep trying to deny reality in any way possible. Looks like 2011 will go down as the tenth warmest year on record. In spite of the fact it was a year of a very strong La Nina, and low TSI.

Sorry, but manufactured scandals are all you have.

Progress of a small sort. The 'but' meaning the scientists haven't been so 'scientific', no? That seems obvious. Now for the warming/melting, may be cyclical, may be a result of man. My feelings are that without verifiable facts are that we continue to assume the possibility that humans might be putting in play the actions of their own destruction and work on counteracting those behaviors. That doesn't mean killing off all fossil fuels without affordable, workable alternatives. It shouldn't mean trading off the 'costs' of current light bulbs, with those that are likely from all studies to cause more pollution and environmental hazards than what we know.

Governments, not just the US, but historical government has more 'unintended consequences' than any other body on earth. Yes, what is the bottom line in those emails is governments, from the UN to EU to US to Canada to the Middle East.

 

[Old Rocks]

And LEDs cause environmental pollution how?

The fact that GHGs cause warming was established over 100 years ago. Further scientific studies have all confirmed that. Annie, I believe that you have stated that you are a school teacher. If I have not mixed you up with another poster, here is a site from the American Institute of Physics that gives the scientific history of the study of GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Nobody with any sanity has proposed instantly ceasing the use of fossil fuels. What has been proposed, and resisted with extreme rhetoric, is the expansion of research in energies that do not create GHGs. And then implementation of the building of the neccessary infrastructure to use that energy. And none care whether that energy is cold fusion, or a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and all the other clean energies.

Given the lag effect of the GHGs, that is, we will not feel the full effect of the present level of GHGs until 30 to 50 years from now, rapid implementation would be to the advantage of all, as we are seeing the effects of the GHG level from the '80's right now in the price of groceries.

Governments are our biggest units of society by neccessity. And, yes, they do have unintended effects very often. Effects that go both ways. But todays 'Conservatives' only recognize the negative, never giving any credit to government for the many positives. And, in a democracy, or democratic republic, government is the people. That is the primary failing of democracy. People get the government they deserve. If they desire a government full of anti-science know nothings, that is what they get.

 

[Si modo]

The enemies of science defend this behavior.

 

[code1211]

Eventually everything does come out, but science isn't supposed to be this way:

DailyTech - Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 25, 2011 5:12 PM

...

While so many are screaming about the 'skeptics' ignoring science, the problem has more to do with trusting what's coming out on climate.

Why should we trust your interpretation of what was said? If someone STOLE your off-the-cuff comments and broadcast them worldwide, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Then to top it all off, the skeptics totally misinterpret the content because..., they're REALLY the ones pushing a poltical agenda and pretending those reacting to their tactics are the real culprits. Nice try denierbot, sell your worn out theories elsewhere.

One thing that might be very helpful for the great unwashed masses to hear is a little perspective on the Global climate and how the climate of today fits in to the climate of the planet through history.

That is not prominently explained by the agenda driven Warmists. If it was, we would all be very aware that we are in one of two of the coldest periods on this planet in that last 550 million years.

The rest of the history of the world resides in temperatures up to 6 degrees warmer.

Then there's the thing about us being a full degree cooler right now than we were within this interglacial at its peak. The most recent millennium warmed at a slower rate than the previous one did.

Omission of the facts needed to make a good decision about this is the stock in trade of the warmists and they constantly say that this planned deprivation of information is the right course of science and that those who want to bring all info into the light are denying and lying.

In light of this habit of obscuring what is needed to make the right choices on this, exposing this clear evidence that this deception is occurring is not only appropriate, it is essential.

If you oppose truth, then you would oppose that truth be told.

 

[code1211]

But the Goddamned glaciers and ice caps just keep melting. The Ocean continues to get more acidic. And you idiots keep trying to deny reality in any way possible. Looks like 2011 will go down as the tenth warmest year on record. In spite of the fact it was a year of a very strong La Nina, and low TSI.

Sorry, but manufactured scandals are all you have.

As we all know, the CO2 is at highs not recorded before.

Other factors decline and so does the climate WHILE THE CO2 CONTINUES TO RISE.

What does this tell us about the effect of CO2 on climate?

 

[code1211]

And LEDs cause environmental pollution how?

The fact that GHGs cause warming was established over 100 years ago. Further scientific studies have all confirmed that. Annie, I believe that you have stated that you are a school teacher. If I have not mixed you up with another poster, here is a site from the American Institute of Physics that gives the scientific history of the study of GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Nobody with any sanity has proposed instantly ceasing the use of fossil fuels. What has been proposed, and resisted with extreme rhetoric, is the expansion of research in energies that do not create GHGs. And then implementation of the building of the neccessary infrastructure to use that energy. And none care whether that energy is cold fusion, or a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and all the other clean energies.

Given the lag effect of the GHGs, that is, we will not feel the full effect of the present level of GHGs until 30 to 50 years from now, rapid implementation would be to the advantage of all, as we are seeing the effects of the GHG level from the '80's right now in the price of groceries.

Governments are our biggest units of society by neccessity. And, yes, they do have unintended effects very often. Effects that go both ways. But todays 'Conservatives' only recognize the negative, never giving any credit to government for the many positives. And, in a democracy, or democratic republic, government is the people. That is the primary failing of democracy. People get the government they deserve. If they desire a government full of anti-science know nothings, that is what they get.

You're just a tad disingenuous, aren't you? Mercury bulbs you over officious twit!

Regarding the cessation of the use of fossil fuels, the Big 0's planning for the use of solar included the projection that a gallon of gas would cost $7.00.

This would mean that nobody could afford to buy food and there would be a world wide recession and a global famine to boot.

 

[Si modo]

But the Goddamned glaciers and ice caps just keep melting. The Ocean continues to get more acidic. And you idiots keep trying to deny reality in any way possible. Looks like 2011 will go down as the tenth warmest year on record. In spite of the fact it was a year of a very strong La Nina, and low TSI.

Sorry, but manufactured scandals are all you have.

As we all know, the CO2 is at highs not recorded before.

Other factors decline and so does the climate WHILE THE CO2 CONTINUES TO RISE.

What does this tell us about the effect of CO2 on climate?

Correlation is causation, only when there is a correlation, doncha know.

 

[skookerasbil]

Eventually everything does come out, but science isn't supposed to be this way:

DailyTech - Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming

Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming
Jason Mick (Blog) - November 25, 2011 5:12 PM

...

While so many are screaming about the 'skeptics' ignoring science, the problem has more to do with trusting what's coming out on climate.

Annie......you gotta get in here more often!!! Its a hoot beating up on the nutter-ass alarmist k00ks. They keep posting up links that are like 10 years old as if we were still in 2005!! We even got a scoreboard going for this forum.......Im out of town and cant post it up but the alarmists are getting decimated. They post up links about the latest IPCC BS as if it actually matters. After all....here we are in 2011 and when the topic of global warming comes up, you get nothing but a big-ass yawn!! Nobody cares about this shit anymore........

C'mon in here more often girl!!!!

 

[IanC]

But the Goddamned glaciers and ice caps just keep melting. The Ocean continues to get more acidic. And you idiots keep trying to deny reality in any way possible. Looks like 2011 will go down as the tenth warmest year on record. In spite of the fact it was a year of a very strong La Nina, and low TSI.

Sorry, but manufactured scandals are all you have.

I believe this thread is about the climategate emails and the doubt that they throw on many of the results and public messages about climate science. I would like to hear your explanations of the obvious lack of integrity in both the climategate principals and in many of their published studies. the new batch of emails adds a lot of context to the first batch, and it looks very bad for the reputations and results. is there anything that would actually change your mind in the slightest?

I went through this with you before when a grey literature publication (from Real Climate) was totally demolished as false and exaggerated, leaving Mann as totally without integrity. you refused to acknowledge the evidence then and I am sure you will ignore the new emails now. but the public and world leaders are getting tired of finding out that they have been lied to, and real concerns may be ignored in the future because of the loss of trust in scientists due to the climategate scandal, a la The Boy Who Cried Wolf

 

[Annie]

Well said, Ian. Was the point of the first post. Whether or not something being caused by man is happening, with the loss of confidence and every appearance of going for the $$, if there is truth published, no one is going to give them credibility.

It's obvious they have blocked all attempts to publish contradictory ideas, results, etc. Truly mind boggling!

 

[IanC]

Well said, Ian. Was the point of the first post. Whether or not something being caused by man is happening, with the loss of confidence and every appearance of going for the $$, if there is truth published, no one is going to give them credibility.

It's obvious they have blocked all attempts to publish contradictory ideas, results, etc. Truly mind boggling!

this second set of emails makes it clear that a lot of the secondary scientists had their doubts on a lot of subjects. and yet they went along publicly. it is shameful

 

[Annie]

Well said, Ian. Was the point of the first post. Whether or not something being caused by man is happening, with the loss of confidence and every appearance of going for the $$, if there is truth published, no one is going to give them credibility.

It's obvious they have blocked all attempts to publish contradictory ideas, results, etc. Truly mind boggling!

this second set of emails makes it clear that a lot of the secondary scientists had their doubts on a lot of subjects. and yet they went along publicly. it is shameful

and why? Simple, big $$$ from ICC and multi-national governments.

An oldie from when we first addressed this topic:

Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ.com

 

[Ringel05]

It's Always About Transparency

What? Now you want to be able to see through the smog??!!
Damn there's no pleasing some people.