This warmergate thing seems overblown.

[uscitizen]

It appears to me like this data scandal is one group and their opponents are trying to paint the entire worldwide scientific community with the same brush and discredit all of them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Whatever you do, don't read anything besides what's posted over at Hufferington.

 

[uscitizen]

Whatever you do, don't read anything besides what's posted over at Hufferington.

I have never been to that site. What is the url?

 

[amrchaos]

It appears to me like this data scandal is one group and their opponents are trying to paint the entire worldwide scientific community with the same brush and discredit all of them?

No--they are not painting the worldide scientific community with a broad brush. Just the Global Warming supporters that runs around saying "We have a consensus, the debate is over". I found that annoying for quite awhile. Still, I listened to them due to the potential gravity of the situation being posed.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It appears to me like this data scandal is one group and their opponents are trying to paint the entire worldwide scientific community with the same brush and discredit all of them?

I don't know enough about the details to get very far into this, but there is no doubt that there have always been those who have a vested interest (economic interest) in trying to discredit the legitimate scientific work that has been done on climate change.

A pox upon anyone who has provided this effort with ammo.

 

[amrchaos]

It appears to me like this data scandal is one group and their opponents are trying to paint the entire worldwide scientific community with the same brush and discredit all of them?

I don't know enough about the details to get very far into this, but there is no doubt that there have always been those who have a vested interest (economic interest) in trying to discredit the legitimate scientific work that has been done on climate change.

A pox upon anyone who has provided this effort with ammo.

But, what if the Data is fixed? This can happen with scientists that has an outside agenda. So the data has to be restudied and more information collect before a final assessment can be made.

There is a chance that Global warming is not real. Conidering the number of predictions that has failed to occur, there is asignificant chance it is not real.

 

[Navy1960]

I'm just curious would the last man who stood on the moon for this nation a PHD in geology be part of that worldwide community?, because if he is, then he would be one of those calling into question this "settled science" of the IPCC along with Professors in Climatology from the University of Alabama, and many others. One more thing of note here, not all those members of the IPCC are experts in the study of Climate change as are those that call it into question, so to make the statement " world wide scientific community" is a bit of a stretch.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes there is a chance that global warming is not real.
There is also a chance that global warming is real but man is not causing it.
There is a chance that man is causiing it.
There is also a chance that global warming is real and is a combination of manmade and non manmade causes.

for the sake of my grandchildren and their children I tend to err on the side of caution. This is the only place we have to live.

Personally it does not matter to much for me as I will be gone in a few years at most anyway. And I own no beachfront property.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes there is a chance that global warming is not real.
There is also a chance that global warming is real but man is not causing it.
There is a chance that man is causiing it.
There is also a chance that global warming is real and is a combination of manmade and non manmade causes.

for the sake of my grandchildren and their children I tend to err on the side of caution. This is the only place we have to live.

Personally it does not matter to much for me as I will be gone in a few years at most anyway. And I own no beachfront property.

The data showed the Earth has not warmed since 1996...go figure.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As to the notion that the wide-spread, global consensus position was artifically generated by emails making fun of the dissenters - I find it very hard to believe.

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

I don't think you generate that level of consensus through an email campaign. But I will continue to look for any indications that any of the data was artifically manipulated or scientifically invalidated.

As it stands, the best information we have is that there is a 90% chance that climate change is being affected (to at least SOME degree) by human activity.

If you confuse "weather" with "climate" or if you fail to understand the earth's convection cycles, then you don't have a prayer of understanding the climate change issue.

 

[Sinatra]

Yes there is a chance that global warming is not real.
There is also a chance that global warming is real but man is not causing it.
There is a chance that man is causiing it.
There is also a chance that global warming is real and is a combination of manmade and non manmade causes.

for the sake of my grandchildren and their children I tend to err on the side of caution. This is the only place we have to live.

Personally it does not matter to much for me as I will be gone in a few years at most anyway. And I own no beachfront property.

____

Ah, the old "Do it for the children" arguement.

How about you open your eyes and mind to the possibility that a portion of the leading global warming "scientists" actively sought to manipulate data to ensure a predetermined conclusion, hid this data from others seeking answers, further attempted to deny publications disputing those conclusions, and ultimately, destroyed data when forced to disclose.

The children deserve this generation be vigilant at all times regarding the expansion of government, the potential loss of freedom, and the crippling of future economic prosperity. Are you even aware of what is being attempted by the proponents of the global warmers? The governmental and political interests that have been working in conjunction to get a Cap and Trade bill passed? Why Cap and Trade? What is that mechanism? Who benefits? What science confirms it would be of any environmental benefit? Is it actually necessary?

Your "Do it for the children" is utter rubbish. You are simply attempting to defend this ridiculous flat-earth global warming mantra in spite of increasing evidence showing widespread corruption within the science community growing rich off of its sustainable crisis construction.

 

[nodoginnafight]

There is no doubt in my mind that elements on BOTH sides of the debate have overstated their case.

Many deniers would have you believe that there is significant dissent within the scientific community and ample scientific work that indicates that there is no such thing as climate change or that there is scant or no evidence to support the notion that human activity is affecting it.
That significantly understates the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change

Many believers (Al Gore among them) have significantly overstated the scientific consensus position and have consistently harped on worst case scenarios that the scientific consensus does not support.

The extremeists on both sides have provided a lot of ammo for their opponents to use against them and in the resulting confusion and acrimony we wind up with two warring camps - NEITHER of which can be relied upon to lead us toward reasonable, responsible environmental policy.

 

[manifold]

This warmergate thing seems overblown.

Are you nuts?

This scandal proves beyond reproach that global warming isn't happing, has never happened, and will never happen, thereby rendering any discussion about man's influence completely moot.

Get with the program already would ya?

 

[Truthmatters]

This is going to end up being very embrrassing for the anti GW crowd.

 

[Navy1960]

Actually I am reserving comment on the isssue of the e-mails , however I do think it is worth noting that this is not the first time that Dr. Mann's name has been mentioned along side the word controversy when it applies to the GW debate. His "hockey stick" graph that relied heavily on tree ring data to support it has been the subject of much debate in the scientific communtity and it's relative application to temperature data. I rather doubt one way or the other this will calm the debate down much, however if one looks at the opinion polls on the matter they do tend to be trending downward on public belief on man made global warming. just 3 years ago 77% of the public thought that man was the cause of GW and now that number has decreased to 56% according to a recent Pew research poll. There is simply too much money to be made in the marketing of Global Warming in order for it's proponents to admit that at least there is room for doubt. The real sad part in all this , is that because it's proponents have so narrowly focused their attentions on this issue, they have limited the possibilites in energy and real solutions that will lead to a clean environmental future. There will never be any satisfaction in this, as an example, while proponents of this tout Solar as one of the energy solutions needed to offset GW, there is a large solar farm planned for construction between Arizona and California in the Joushua Tree National Forest, and guess who is blocking construction? Environmental groups!