ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Shady]

Wait... I just noticed your new signature... here, chew on this: ... I can't play much longer Shady... real work awaits... must save the world, ya know!

That information is from pre-climategate. New facts have been introduced. Facts that shine a very negative light on the so-called scientists involved in so-called man-made global warming.

[JB Globe]

Do you really think that lying and misrepresenting the sceptical position actually helps your case?

I don't think it's misrepresenting to say that people who claim that human activity is not affecting the climate are either dishonest or ignorant. To what degree it's affecting us and what we should do about it is a legit line of argument, but those that call climate change a "hoax" are being blatant hypocrites by chastizing these scientists for doing something they do on a more regular and more extreme basis.

They are being held to the standards of any professional asking for the public trust. In this case, the have been shown be liers, manipulators, blackmailers and possibly criminals.

No argument here. But again - it's not as if the anti-climate change lobby (aka - fossil fuel industry and others) don't fund propaganda that does exactly the same thing, on a more regular basis, and on a much larger scale.

The question you should be asking is why anyone should trust these people now.

Well it's obvious - no one trusts the scientists in question.

But just as with any other professional field, the actions of several people don't invalidate the whole practice. We don't distrust doctors because some of them botch surgeries due to negligence or malice.

I mean, I question why people are being harsher with climate change scientists than they are with bankers and stock brokers. Several scientists are enough to taint your views of the whole field? Okay - then how do you feel about the system-wide corruption in the global finance and insurance industries?

Seems to me the level of weight people are putting on "climategate" has a lot to do with their political leanings.

[JB Globe]

Because they are held to a higher standard is why they are being questioned on their ethics. Scientists don't do what they have admitted to doing in their e-mails.

It is nothing less than scandalous. A pox on the scientific community. It is an obvious grasp at creating a personal legacy encouraged by political opportunism.

I totally agree. But people are blowing this out perspective for political purposes as well - this incident doesn't invalidate the rest of the data thats out there, or the reputations of the researchers.

After all, this isn't the first time that scientists have fudged their research for political purposes - this has happened before and it has happened to all sides of any given issue. To think that there aren't a few scientists working for coal-industry funded anti-climate-change think tanks that do the same thing is naive.

My point is that people in the climate change movement cannot lower themselves to the level of their opponents, because that's not how this debate will be won.

[wyly]

Nope. That is engineering and those models go through a lot of testing and validation before they are used. Waving hands to explain away 8 years of declining temps is not an acceptable response for engineers using computer models.

The claim that there is a connection between observed changes and man's activity is theoretical science.

no, it has been firmly established/demonstrated man can willingly affect and modify weather,so that takes it well into applied... you really need to keep up with advances in science if your going to make claims on scientific knowledge...

[Shady]

no, it has been firmly established/demonstrated man can willingly affect and modify weather

What's affect and modify mean? When I boil water, I'm sending water vapor into the "atmosphere", therefore, modifying/affecting things. When I breath out CO2, I'm modifying/affecting the "atmosphere."

[Riverwind]

I don't think it's misrepresenting to say that people who claim that human activity is not affecting the climate are either dishonest or ignorant.

It is dishonest and ignorant to claim that sceptics do not agree that human activity is not affecting the climate. What is disputed the is the size of the effect.

No argument here. But again - it's not as if the anti-climate change lobby (aka - fossil fuel industry and others) don't fund propaganda that does exactly the same thing, on a more regular basis, and on a much larger scale.

So how is the anti-climate change lobby propaganda any worse than the propaganda by the climate change lobby? In pure dollar terms more money being spent promoting climate alarmism than opposing it. In fact, the emails show the scientists collaborating with greenpeace to get the right message out. Why is this acceptable if collaboration with big-oil is not?

But just as with any other professional field, the actions of several people don't invalidate the whole practice. We don't distrust doctors because some of them botch surgeries due to negligence or malice.

No. But we do demand that the professionals review the processes that failed and allowed the corruption to go on for so long. So far, most climate scientists are trying to claim that the scientists did nothing wrong. That claim demonstrates that the corruption extends way beyond the scientists involved and a broader investigation is required.

Seems to me the level of weight people are putting on "climategate" has a lot to do with their political leanings.

What does have to do with anything? Climate alarmism has been a favorite cause of left wing activists because the 'solutions' happen to be things that they would love to see happen even if there was no alleged crisis. People on the right are suspicious for the same reasons. Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shady]

In pure dollar terms more money being spent promoting climate alarmism than opposing it. In fact, the emails show the scientists collaborating with greenpeace to get the right message out. Why is this acceptable if collaboration with big-oil is not?

Exactly. In fact, NBC Universal has had several "green" weeks prompoted on their network. Emphisizing so-called climate change, in conjunction with it's parent company General Electric.

[eyeball]

It's not practical to have the publishing scientists engage with outsiders, any more than it is to have the government's Cabinet reachable by email. It's up to skeptical scientists to use crowdsourcing as a tool to go through larger amounts of data.

ADDED: Your link seems to reflect a new realization in thinking people everywhere (very post-McLuhan by the way) that new media needs to be harnessed and used positively.

a very astute point. Dealing with the denialsphere does impact real scientists doing real research... they repeatedly get drawn into the bogus claims of the deniers that get rocketed around the denialsphere... and... invariably into the mainstream by agenda driven journalists/organizations. On that note I find it telling that none of the usual suspects here has touched the post I put up concerning the lobby group CEI and their (before Hackergate) attempts. Most telling.

Crowdsourcing is analogous to having a referendum on what to do about AGW, it spreads the task of making and taking responsibility for the decision to do or not do something about AGW. If we have enough faith in democracy to elect people to make such important decisions on our behalf we should have enough faith and courage in our own ability to make them ourselves.

[Michael Hardner]

Crowdsourcing is analogous to having a referendum on what to do about AGW, it spreads the task of making and taking responsibility for the decision to do or not do something about AGW. If we have enough faith in democracy to elect people to make such important decisions on our behalf we should have enough faith and courage in our own ability to make them ourselves.

1. Crowdsourcing isn't about getting approval/disapproval or voting on AGW, it's about getting a large group of people to help with the task of going through the data and picking it apart.

2. We don't elect people to do the thinking for us, we elect people to represent us and by extension, our point of view. So if there are a lot of people who are not convinced about AGW, an election isn't going to produce a group of politicians who are convinced about AGW.

And anyway, it's a strange thing for you to suggest as you don't trust civil servants either.

[wyly]

Crowdsourcing is analogous to having a referendum on what to do about AGW, it spreads the task of making and taking responsibility for the decision to do or not do something about AGW. If we have enough faith in democracy to elect people to make such important decisions on our behalf we should have enough faith and courage in our own ability to make them ourselves.

I don't share that faith in democracy we elect a lot of stupid people which reflects the populace that vote for them...

I have more faith in someone who was hired to do a job based on his/her credentials by people who are qualified to judge those credentials and understand the requirements for the job...

[eyeball]

1. Crowdsourcing isn't about getting approval/disapproval or voting on AGW, it's about getting a large group of people to help with the task of going through the data and picking it apart.

As I mentioned earlier its the decision to do or not do something that is the task that needs doing. We're long past the point that our government should have made a decision. If it can't or won't, then we should.

2. We don't elect people to do the thinking for us, we elect people to represent us and by extension, our point of view. So if there are a lot of people who are not convinced about AGW, an election isn't going to produce a group of politicians who are convinced about AGW.

We also elect them to make decisions... if there is a majority of people who don't think we should do anything then fine, but one way or the other lets just get on with either doing something nothing or something in between.

And anyway, it's a strange thing for you to suggest as you don't trust civil servants either.

You lost me there, aside from facilitating a referendum what have they got to do with deciding whether the government should or shouldn't act? I thought that was our representatives job, and given they aren't doing it...who does that leave?

[eyeball]

I don't share that faith in democracy we elect a lot of stupid people which reflects the populace that vote for them...

I have more faith in someone who was hired to do a job based on his/her credentials by people who are qualified to judge those credentials and understand the requirements for the job...

Oh I have enough faith in the experts to do their jobs, but what I don't have any faith in is that the people we elect will ever get around to doing their job of passing on our orders to the experts.

Canadians have made it abundantly clear for years that they've wanted the government to do something about AGW but here we are with nothing but empty promises and nothing to show for it. Do you really think the majority of Canadians are so stupid that a mere handful of sceptics will derail the convictions that Canadians have demonstrated about our environment generally and AGW specifically for years now?

I've long suspected the real reason we as a nation can't 'do something' is that our democratic system is basically to primitive and can't or won't adapt to the needs of a rapidly changing world. We lack any meaningful capacity to simply and effectively make our government follow our orders.

[Michael Hardner]

As I mentioned earlier its the decision to do or not do something that is the task that needs doing. We're long past the point that our government should have made a decision. If it can't or won't, then we should.

That decision lies with all of us, though, and given the complexity, the volume of data, and the importance of the decision it's unrealistic to expect that the decision could be made quickly. 10 years would be quick.

We also elect them to make decisions... if there is a majority of people who don't think we should do anything then fine, but one way or the other lets just get on with either doing something nothing or something in between.

There are many decisions over long periods of time affecting many people.

You lost me there, aside from facilitating a referendum what have they got to do with deciding whether the government should or shouldn't act? I thought that was our representatives job, and given they aren't doing it...who does that leave?

Not acting is making a decision, so what makes you say they aren't doing it ? "Let's wait and see." is a strategy too.

[eyeball]

That decision lies with all of us, though, and given the complexity, the volume of data, and the importance of the decision it's unrealistic to expect that the decision could be made quickly. 10 years would be quick.

And its been what now, 25 - 30 years?

I'm just talking about the decision to DO SOMETHING, exactly what that is should obviously be left up to experts. Like us I suspect they're still waiting for a decision to start acting.

[eyeball]

Not acting is making a decision, so what makes you say they aren't doing it ? "Let's wait and see." is a strategy too.

I haven't seen any policy statements that spell out a wait and see strategy. If I did I would expect it to look and sound at least a little like a precautionary approach. No, what we've seen is nothing but talk about doing something not waiting.

I don't see why waiting couldn't be given as a choice in a referendum.

Edited December 2, 2009 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

I don't see why waiting couldn't be given as a choice in a referendum.

Right beside ruining the economy and below taxing us to death.

[Michael Hardner]

And its been what now, 25 - 30 years?

I'm just talking about the decision to DO SOMETHING, exactly what that is should obviously be left up to experts. Like us I suspect they're still waiting for a decision to start acting.

30 years ? Since what ? Since the term 'Global Warming' was first used ? 20 years since the IPCC was established.

Governments aren't experts, they're proxies for us.

[Michael Hardner]

I haven't seen any policy statements that spell out a wait and see strategy. If I did I would expect it to look and sound at least a little like a precautionary approach. No, what we've seen is nothing but talk about doing something not waiting.

I don't see why waiting couldn't be given as a choice in a referendum.

What choice ? "Do you want to stop Global Warming ?: Yes / No "

Again, you're oversimplifying things that are complicated.

[wyly]

I've long suspected the real reason we as a nation can't 'do something' is that our democratic system is basically to primitive and can't or won't adapt to the needs of a rapidly changing world. We lack any meaningful capacity to simply and effectively make our government follow our orders.

I'd agree on that...we have a first by the post electoral system that rewards doing nothing...a better represntational system where a political party get a share of seats in parliment that reflect their popular vote...as it is now we a party whose leader who has claimed AGW is a socialist plot to steal or money giving direction with only 36% of the popular vote, the majority want progress on CC but we have system that gives the minority power...harper is an anti science/ Christian Fundie who is paying lip service to an issue that he doesn't believe and will drag out any response to Climate Change as long as he can...

[Shady]

Governments aren't experts, they're proxies for us.

Very well said.

[Riverwind]

I don't see why waiting couldn't be given as a choice in a referendum.

How about this approach: add an optional box on everyone's tax return where they could add whatever they wanted to their tax bill to pay for "doing something". The government would be able to set government policies based on how much was donated each year.

The munk debates were interesting. 61% of the people started believing that climate change is a crisis. By the end of the debate only 56% of the people shared that view.

The main argument against the resolution was: "do something" would cost a huge amount of money and would likely result in little benefit according to the IPCC's own figures. More importantly, the people that would benefit would be better off if the money was spent helping them directly.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Riverwind

[ironstone]

From Kevin Trenberth(U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research).To Michael Mann.Oct 12 2009 'The fact is we can't account for the lack of global warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't...Our observing system is inadequate'

Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics-that there is no evidence that temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.

From the Ottawa Citizen,page A8,November 29th edition.This is but one of the emails that have come to light.Correct me if I'm wrong,but isn't one of the foundations of good science the INCLUSION of all relevant data?Cat got your tongue Al Gore?

[Jack Weber]

This ongoing conversation you guys are having is very interesting,but I believe we are getting bogged down in the minutia...

If the science on climate change has been manipulated,and it increasingly looks as if it has to some extent,some questions must be asked as it relates to the larger picture...

Why and for what purpose???

[Riverwind]

Why and for what purpose???

Many of the people pushing catastrophic AGW believe it is true and feel they have an obligation convince the rest of the world that massive changes to society are required to prevent disaster. This has created a culture where the ends justify the means. Over the years we have seen many examples of institutions that caused a lot of harm because of such attitudes.

That is why we need to take these emails and what they say about the culture of climate scientists seriously.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

Have any of the main stream media yet reported that Phil Jones is stepping down?