ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Riverwind]

there is no adapting to it, pure fantasy, it's stop it or die...

Well we do have an impass because it will be impossible significantly reduce global CO2 emissions with the technology we have. This means we really only have two options:

1) Piss away trillions on mitigation and hope we have enough left over to pay for adaptation in 50 years.

2) Save the money for use if/when adaptation is required.

[bush_cheney2004]

there is no adapting to it, pure fantasy, it's stop it or die...

Nope....it's always "die" in the end....pure fantasy to think otherwise.

[wyly]

Nope....it's always "die" in the end....pure fantasy to think otherwise.

"die" that could be the way it ends up, one climatologist has already said that he believes it's to late, but that's only one so I'll be more optimistic and say it can be stopped...it must be stopped, anyone who thinks civilization can adapt is deluding themselves they just haven't thought through the ramifications of a warmer planet...the environmental damage will be staggering...

[bush_cheney2004]

"die" that could be the way it ends up, one climatologist has already said that he believes it's to late, but that's only one so I'll be more optimistic and say it can be stopped...it must be stopped, anyone who thinks civilization can adapt is deluding themselves they just haven't thought through the ramifications of a warmer planet...the environmental damage will be staggering...

Then let it be staggering.....another Ice Age is just around the corner.

The Earth laughs at such puny human concerns....enjoy the present interglacial period while it lasts. (There is a reason it is called "interglacial").

Edited December 1, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

I havent read all of this thread so I'm sorry if this link has already been posted.

In addition, one of the important aspects of this story is how the MSM has missed the story entirely. Many are just now beginning to provide reports that at least present all the facts.

Andrew Revkin in the NYT has covered the story but in a way that is extremely sympathetic (ie complacent) to the CRU.

To my knowledge, this is the first NYT article that takes the bull by the horns:

Consider, for instance, the phrase that has been turned into a music video by gleeful climate skeptics: “hide the decline,” used in an e-mail message by Phil Jones, the head of the university’s Climatic Research Unit. He was discussing the preparation of a graph for the cover of a 1999 report from the World Meteorological Organization showing that temperatures in the past several decades were the highest of the past millennium.

Most of the graph was based on analyses of tree rings and other “proxy” records like ice cores and lake sediments. These indirect measurements indicated that temperatures declined in the middle of the millennium and then rose in the first half of the 20th century, which jibes with other records. But the tree-ring analyses don’t reveal a sharp warming in the late 20th century — in fact, they show a decline in temperatures, contradicting what has been directly measured with thermometers.

...

In fact, one skeptic raised this very issue about tree-ring data in a comment posted in 2004 on RealClimate, the blog operated by climate scientists. The comment, which questioned the propriety of “grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record,” immediately drew a sharp retort on the blog from Michael Mann, an expert at Penn State University:

“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation Web sites) appearing in this forum.”

Dr. Mann now tells me that he was unaware, when he wrote the response, that such grafting had in fact been done in the earlier cover chart, and I take him at his word. But I don’t see why the question was dismissed so readily, with the implication that only a tool of the fossil-fuel industry would raise it.

NYT

[Riverwind]

In addition, one of the important aspects of this story is how the MSM has missed the story entirely. Many are just now beginning to provide reports that at least present all the facts.

Here is a blog that is collecting MSM links to the story. It has taken two weeks but we are finally seeing some decent coverage. Perhaps the fact the Australian Opposition Leader lost his job to climate sceptics will get more MSM to pay attension.

Here is a good comment by Steyn

Michael Gerson has lousy timing. In The Washington Post, in one of those now familiar elegies for old media, he writes:

And the whole system is based on a kind of intellectual theft. Internet aggregators (who link to news they don't produce) and bloggers would have little to collect or comment upon without the costly enterprise of newsgathering and investigative reporting. The old-media dinosaurs remain the basis for the entire media food chain.

That's laughably untrue in the Warmergate story. If you rely on the lavishly remunerated "climate correspondents" of the big newspapers and networks, you'll know nothing about the Climate Research Unit scandals - just the business-as-usual drivel about Boston being underwater by 2011. Indeed, even when a prominent media warm-monger addresses the issue, the newspaper prefers to reprint a month-old column predating the scandal. If you follow online analysis from obscure websites on the fringes of the map, you'll know what's going on. If you go to the convenience store and buy today's newspaper, you won't. That's the problem.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Here is a blog that is collecting MSM links to the story. It has taken two weeks but we are finally seeing some decent coverage. Perhaps the fact the Australian Opposition Leader lost his job to climate sceptics will get more MSM to pay attension.

Here is a good comment by Steyn

Yes, as I wrote (I think on another thread) this is another aspect of the story - the fact that this is one of the hottest stories on the web, yet not in the MSM.

And - I don't buy the idea that dinosaur media does the heavy lifting, and that bloggers are bottom feeders. The news is driven by press releases, not investigations, and we all have access to those.

As for investigations, "crowdsourcing" has proven to be more effective in this story than big media investigations have been.

[Argus]

there is no adapting to it, pure fantasy, it's stop it or die...

And you guys wonder why people don't take you seriously.

[Pliny]

Well, the topic is heating up in the MSM. I am hearing a few stories now and with Copenhagen coming up it appears it will be a bust taking the latest into consideration.

Here's another good article.

Science or not?

Wyly and Waldo wouldn't happen to be socialists, would they? Union reps maybe?

Argus, you are right about proponents of AGW not doing any thinking on the subject. They can't, they have to believe the science.

It is beyond me that some do not see the whole subject of AGW as political and not scientific. Remove the politics out of it and some genuine movement towards curtailing pollution may be possible. I think we all see a necessity to clean house so what's with the political movement to redistribute wealth? What's the real story here? There is a struggle but we haven't got to anywhere near what's going on. Economic activity has shifted from the US to China giving it more global clout and I think the existent heirarchy is attempting to concentrate power in the UN before China becomes too much of an influence and too independent.

Always up for a good conspiracy theory but that appears to be happening. Climate change is providing immediacy for political change, why that political expediency is necessary should be answered before any political solutions to climate change are proceeded upon and I am quite certain that any political solution is not necessary. We just need honest and unsuppressed data to work with.

[wyly]

And you guys wonder why people don't take you seriously.

I don't wonder at all, I know why...because they're ignorant/under educated hillbillies...

[wyly]

Well, the topic is heating up in the MSM. I am hearing a few stories now and with Copenhagen coming up it appears it will be a bust taking the latest into consideration.

Here's another good article.

Science or not?

Wyly and Waldo wouldn't happen to be socialists, would they? Union reps maybe?

you wouldn't happen to be a reichwinger would you, someone who searches for commies under his bed every night? a follower of PM Harper who claimed Climate Change is a world wide socialist conspiracy to steal our money!!!! the world is one big conspiracy plot organized by unions and the WWF

[Shady]

you wouldn't happen to be a reichwinger would you

Does calling people reichwingers and hillbillies qualify as defending your position and ideas?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't wonder at all, I know why...because they're ignorant/under educated hillbillies...

"Only *$#% idiots use ad hominem attacks..."

Edited December 1, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[wyly]

Does calling people reichwingers and hillbillies qualify as defending your position and ideas?

you whose favourite response is calling anyone who disagrees with your narrow view of the world a LIAR...oh the irony

[wyly]

"Only *$#% idiots use ad hominem attacks..."

tit for tat...the reichwing wants to label everyone who disagrees with them as liberals, socialists, Union reps, Journalist, Arts Degree Graduates, commies...anything but address the issue..I'm happy to play their childish game too...

[eyeball]

Here's another good article.

Science or not?

The real tragedy, however, may be that — one day — scientists will cry wolf to a public that has learned to ignore them.

I'd say this is a slope we've been sliding down for some time now. Scientists are merely joining the ranks of politicians, priests, soldiers, police, bureaucrats, lawyers, bankers etc etc that people have long been losing faith in. Maybe this is all just part of the process of adapting but I can't for the life of me imagine what the result will be. Never mind Mother Nature, look at Human Nature on the run - like a chicken with its head cut off. We couldn't act to collectively punch our way out of a wet paper bag never mind stop ourselves from wrecking the planet.

If there was ever a time for some wise benevolent aliens to pay us a visit I'd say this is it, and screw the Prime Directive.

Well, I dreamed I saw the silver

Space ships flying

In the yellow haze of the sun,

There were children crying

And colors flying

All around the chosen ones.

All in a dream, all in a dream

The loading had begun.

They were flying Mother Nature's

Silver seed to a new home in the sun.

Flying Mother Nature's

Silver seed to a new home.

Edited December 1, 2009 by eyeball

[Shady]

you whose favourite response is calling anyone who disagrees with your narrow view of the world a LIAR...

Well, it's not my fault you've continuously lied throughout this entire thread. A liar is a liar. Period.

And the only narrow view of the world is yours my friend. I admire that you're a true believer, but sometimes you gotta allow at least a little logic and reason to enter your mindset.

oh the irony

No, the real irony is you claiming to respond in kind, to people who discuss things rationally, and then calling them reichwingers and hillbillies.

[jbg]

Well, it's not my fault you've continuously lied throughout this entire thread. A liar is a liar. Period.

Name calling doesn't help the argument.

Wyly is no more a liar that any of the original fear-mongers on global warming. A proof is a proof. A fraud is a fraud.

[Shady]

Name calling doesn't help the argument.

It's not simply name calling to point out when somebody is purposely lying.

Wyly is no more a liar that any of the original fear-mongers on global warming.

Well, I consider them liars as well. And the recently hacked evidence proves it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Shady

[wyly]

It's not simply name calling to point out when somebody is purposely lying.

Well, I consider them liars as well. And the recently hacked evidence proves it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

it's not name calling to point out someone's a reichwinger, under educated and ignorant when they are exactly that...and whats wrong with hillbilles? why is that owrse than LIAR???

[wyly]

It's not simply name calling to point out when somebody is purposely lying.

Well, I consider them liars as well. And the recently hacked evidence proves it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

it's not name calling to point out someone's a reichwinger, under educated and ignorant when they are exactly that...and whats wrong with hillbilles? why is that worse than LIAR???

[Shady]

it's not name calling to point out someone's a reichwinger, under educated and ignorant when they are exactly that...and whats wrong with hillbilles? why is that worse than LIAR???

I've already proven you're a liar. I've posted several links directly refuting your misinformation. However, you'll have a difficult time proving that someone in a forum, who you don't know, and can't see, is a hillbillie or reichwinger (whatever that is).

Like I said before. I admire that you're a true believer, but you really need to allow some logic and reason (science) into your area of information.

[Riverwind]

Here is another excellent commentary on why climategate cannot be brushed aside.

Those of us who work in the drug industry know that we have to keep track of such things, because we're making decisions that could eventually run into the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars of our own money. And eventually we're going to be reviewed by regulatory agencies that are not staffed with our friends, and who are perfectly capable of telling us that they don't like our numbers and want us to go spend another couple of years (and another fifty or hundred million dollars) generating better ones for them. The regulatory-level lab and manufacturing protocols (GLP and GMP) generate a blizzard of paperwork for just these reasons.

But the stakes for climate research are even higher. The economic decisions involved make drug research programs look like roundoff errors. The data involved have to be very damned good and convincing, given the potential impact on the world economy, through both the possible effects of global warming itself and the effects of trying to ameliorate it. Looking inside the CRU does not make me confident that their data come anywhere close to that standard:

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

I do not want the future of the world economy riding on this. And what's more, it appears that the CRU no longer has much of their original raw data. It appears to have been tossed over twenty years ago. What we have left, as far as I can see, is a large data set of partially unknown origin, which has been adjusted by various people over the years in undocumented ways. If this is not the case, I would very much like the CRU to explain why not, and in great detail. And I do not wish to hear from people who wish to pretend that everything's just fine.

[August1991]

The following article is a very good read. Richard Lindzen is professor of Meteorology at MIT. I find the article informative and clear and explains the theory of global warming.

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionallysuch as for the last dozen years or soit does little that can be discerned.

WSJ

----

BTW, Phil Jones, the head of the CRU has "temporarily" resigned:

"What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible," Jones said in a statement. "After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support."

Washington Post

I find the phrase "CRU continues its world leading research" intriguing. If the CRU data is found to be faulty, what does that mean about this theory? Other commenters have noted how there are tens of thousands of research scientists around the world and other independent data sets. How true is that? How central is the CRU to this issue?

Edited December 1, 2009 by August1991

[Riverwind]

If the CRU data is found to be faulty, what does that mean about this theory? Other commenters have noted how there are tens of thousands of research scientists around the world and other independent data sets. How true is that? How central is the CRU to this issue?

There is no such thing as truly independent temperature dataset since there is only once source for the raw temperature data collected over the last 400 years. Where the datasets differ is in what weather stations they choose and what adjustments they apply to the data to "correct" any errors in the data. In many cases the adjustments will change the trend significantly. Now many of these adjustments are unambiguous and scientifically justified but others are ad hoc adjustments based on what the scientist thinks is right (e.g. the adjustments to deal with warmer temperatures caused by growing cities).

That said, the scientists managing these datasets understand that ad hoc adjustments are something that could be criticized by their collegues and sceptics so they look for a way to demonstrate that they are likely to be right. One easy way to prove the credibility of your adjustments is to demonstrate that the results are the same as other data sets. What this means is these data sets end up being adjusted to look like each other over time.

Here is an analysis for laymen of the issues with GISS dataset - the major competitor to the CRU datasets. The bottom line is all of the datasets are suspect and we need to have a new dataset redeveloped from scratch in an open forum. Here is his lament in the comments over what he believes is evidence of deliberate manipulation to create a warming trend when there is none:

I must admit, it has turned out to be more (and worse) than I expected when I started this journey. But a job once started must be carried to a conclusion…

As to motive and goal of the GIStemp “designers”. On the one hand, I cherish Hanlon’s Razor and try desperately to find a way to attribute this mess to stupidity rather than malice. For a long time I could make it fit. It just took a lot of stupidity.

Lately, and most especially with the world wide thermometer deletions, seeming timed in just such a way as to continue a warming trend in the product even in the face of a cooling reality, peaking just as Copenhagen looms… I find the quantity of stupidity needed to “do the deed” and the exquisite timing of the arrival of that stupidity, first in the code, then in the thermometer counts after the code was released and could no longer be ‘tuned’; I find it begins to approach infinity…

Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind