ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Riverwind]

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

CBC News tonight.

[Jack Weber]

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.

I believe it may be more sinister than that...It may be entirely possible that we are seeing the tip of a collusive conspiracy on behalf of the elites behind the scenes,pushing for climate change legislation.There is alot of money to be made by the elites on the Left AND the Right if they get what they want.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Jack Weber

[jbg]

How do you know the emails are real and it's not a hoax to make it look like a hoax? Or even a hoax to make it look like a hoax to make it look like a hoax.

Same way a proof is made to look like a proof?

[jbg]

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

It can't help itself on the way it posts.

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.

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

These people want funding. They feel a sense of entitlement to research dollars so they are, well, entitled.

[Riverwind]

It may be entirely possible that we are seeing the tip of a collusive conspiracy

Not a chance. All we have is a coalition of different groups collaborating on promoting alarmism because it suits their self interest.

e.g.

NGOs want increased aid to the developing world - climate change is an excuse to increase funding.

Environmental groups see humans as a cancer on the planet - climate change allows them to push policies that control what the human cancer is allowed to do.

Bankers are looking for new ways to make money - carbon trading create a massive new market to exploit.

Industrial giants want profits - green technology mandates bring in cash.

None these groups has anything other than climate change in common but the confluence of self interest has created a massive movement that has consumed every leader in the world.

[jbg]

The so-called community of legitmate scientists have been exposed as bullying, bias, scale-tippers. The process is rigged.

Of course it is. Do you think the politicians convening in Cophenhagen are really there to save the earth?

They're not stupid.

[eyeball]

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.

I wonder what it says about all the universities and think tanks filled with political scientists, economists and whatnot that study and expound on the merits of things like free trade, globalization and more tax cuts for the rich.

So is it still too much to expect that some sort of standard for scepticism might emerge out of this? If it only takes 5% of scientists to disagree on something to prevent public policies, for something that is routinely termed potentially catastrophic or disastrous by the other 95% - how many does it take to make us seriously doubt the wisdom of doing things like cutting a government's revenues so we can cause its income to increase?

[bush_cheney2004]

...So is it still too much to expect that some sort of standard for scepticism might emerge out of this? If it only takes 5% of scientists to disagree on something to prevent public policies....

Of course it is too much to ask, as scientists should never determine public policy. Just the facts please, if they can even manage that.

[Riverwind]

I wonder what it says about all the universities and think tanks filled with political scientists, economists and whatnot that study and expound on the merits of things like free trade, globalization and more tax cuts for the rich.

The opinions of economists are not used as sledgehammer to silence public debate on a policy and the consensus among economists is often ignored (GST, Free Trade, etc).

If it only takes 5% of scientists to disagree on something to prevent public policies

Climate scientists really have no business giving their opinion on economics or public policies. The have to lay out the facts, be honest about the uncertainties and leave up to the of society to debate what should be done. The problem we have now is climate scientists feel they are entitled to exagerrate the certainty because they wish to promote specific policy changes. That is wrong and has to change.

[Riverwind]

More evidence of wide spread bias in the peer review system here.

I am amazed that a prestigious journal like Nature could run an editorial the looks like it was written by Greenpeace.

Perhaps most telling is how the editors of Nature think they can dismiss sceptics as "the climate-change-denialist fringe". It is clear that these people no concept of scientific objectivity and we should not be making trillion dollar investments based on what these people choose to anoint as 'good' science.

I realize that there are other journals but if a journal like Nature is so easily exposed cesspool of alarmist zealotry then it is impossible to assume that the other major journals are any better.

Enough is enough. It is time to demand accountability from these people who think they have a monopoly of the "truth".

[Keepitsimple]

More evidence of wide spread bias in the peer review system here.

I am amazed that a prestigious journal like Nature could run an editorial the looks like it was written by Greenpeace.

Perhaps most telling is how the editors of Nature think they can dismiss sceptics as "the climate-change-denialist fringe". It is clear that these people no concept of scientific objectivity and we should not be making trillion dollar investments based on what these people choose to anoint as 'good' science.

I realize that there are other journals but if a journal like Nature is so easily exposed cesspool of alarmist zealotry then it is impossible to assume that the other major journals are any better.

Enough is enough. It is time to demand accountability from these people who think they have a monopoly of the "truth".

Enough is enough is right. That editorial is the "coming out" of this Journal's bias. Their complete dismissal of any skepticism is completely in line with skeptics' claim that their papers are dismissed. That editorial is maddening....but in a way, also frightening. Having said that, perhaps it's all well and good....Nature has exposed itself for what it is......for all to see. What an amazing chain of events.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The fact is that there are more than likely trillions of dollars from all over the world at stake here. Most of those are citizens tax dollars I might add and we all know who collects and spends that, our halo wearing politicians. Lets not turn this around and start burning books or painting the scientists with a big wide brush. The science is unclear on this, that leaves the politicians to sort it out. Ultimate blame rests with them.

[Riverwind]

Lets not turn this around and start burning books or painting the scientists with a big wide brush.

That is why I think the emphasis should be fixing the processes that are supposed to ensure the integrity of the science. Nature, like all peer reviewed journals, is a private for-profit company that decides what science is worthy of publication and what is not. If our process for making science based policies depends on the decisions made by the editors at these journals then we need to make sure we can trust these journals to be objective.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That is why I think the emphasis should be fixing the processes that are supposed to ensure the integrity of the science. Nature, like all peer reviewed journals, is a private for-profit company that decides what science is worthy of publication and what is not. If our process for making science based policies depends on the decisions made by the editors at these journals then we need to make sure we can trust these journals to be objective.

Now that I can agree with. Yet even so it does not address the reality of the media and their responsibility either.

[August1991]

Listen to this recent (2 Dec) BBC interview with Michael Mann. (It starts at about 18:30 in.)

It appears that Mann is divorcing himself from Phil Jones. It is hard not to conclude that Mann is now afraid of the consequences of the emails/code hacked/released.

The exasperation in his voice is palpable. He is clearly under a lot of pressure. To my knowledge, Jones has yet to conduct an interview.

More evidence of wide spread bias in the peer review system here.

That editorial also errs by getting involved directly in US politics. It advocates passing "the" climate bill as opposed to "a" climate bill.

Scientists should report results and advise politicians but ultimately leave it up to the politicians to make the decisions.

The more scientists get involved in the political process, the more partisan they are likely to become.

In many ways, I find that the "warmists" are their own worst enemy. I suspect that, like this Nature editorial, Wryly on this forum (and others posting comments elsewhere) do not realize that their stridency and hyperbole completely undermine their claim to represent the scientific method.

I have been posting to this forum long enough to see some of my ancient posts resurface years later. In hindsight, my best posts are those written calmly and clearly. If someone reads through this thread in five years time, I suspect that Riverwind's posts here will still make sense.

Edited December 3, 2009 by August1991

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Its all good then.....NOT. All this will do is slow down the process of peer reviews.

[Michael Hardner]

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?

This could just be as simple as forgetting one word, such as 'data'. He'll have to explain it, in any case.

[Riverwind]

This could just be as simple as forgetting one word, such as 'data'. He'll have to explain it, in any case.

He has already.

He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures.

But his explanation is even worse than the original statement because when faced with a mismatch between models and reality he assumes that reality must be wrong. The blind faith in climate models is perhaps the biggest problem with climate science today. Edited December 3, 2009 by Riverwind

[Pliny]

View PostPliny, on 02 December 2009 - 11:27 AM, said:

I know their motivation is to improve something in their lives, Michael. I could assume their activities are purely altruistic but altruism can only be viewed through a personal lens and thus in it's purity is merely an attempt to please everyone which in it's end pleases no one. If the individuals involved in this were true to their science they would abandon their political positions, present the data and allow politicians to do what they feel is necessary. Unfortunately, these scientists themselves have abandoned science and become political servants in the manufacture of some global ideological Utopian civilization driven by science. They have taken it upon themselves to be the driving force behind global politics. What are their motivations? Utopia. Not much different than the promise of Heaven. It is what Waldo would want for us all if we could just open our eyes and see. Science will advise our politicians who will lead us to the promised land. Our previous political advisers have all proven to be charlatans - the Pope, the priests, the Imams, our moral guides are all disproven liars and are solely obstacles in our civilized progression. A new dawn of enlightenment is upon us.

You don't know that. You can't see into somebody's heart.

You are right. I can't see into somebody's heart. I can only judge from actions and statements. I can know something from that. Can you tell that Waldo and Wyly are socialists? Can you tell I am not a socialist? Wyly plays the fascist by calling his opponents "reichwingers". The point he misses is that a fascist is just a socialist that disagrees with another socialist with regards to the variety of statism that should prevail.

We are human Michael, and try to make our world as perfect as we can. "Perfect" means something different to every individual. We may or may not agree on what perfect is. I

don't agree political solutions resolve anything it claims it can resolve. Waldo and Wyly obviously believe that government will look after us better than they can look after themselves or minimally they believe it can approach what they desire to be a more perfect world. I don't have that faith in government and am very wary of a monopolistic agency entrusted to use force.

The more I am engaged in conversation with anyone the more I understand of what their perfect world would be comprised. A person may be very afraid and spread fear, a few may just want to spread fear. Differentiating the fox from chicken little is very difficult and I believe this is what you mean by not being able to see what is in someone's heart.

Are environmentalists just alarmists? Is there a fox or is there a necessity for real concern? In my opinion politics is moving way too fast and could create more chaos than a few degrees difference in the global temperature, to which we could probably adapt. there have been warmer times than now in our history. Orange trees used to grow in southern England after all. Having said that, we can and should attempt to be as energy efficient and pollution free as we possibly can and no one is arguing we can be as wasteful and uncaring about the environment as we wish.

Is "reason" concerning the environment being used to employ force or to resolve a problem? In my estimation too much force is being applied and there seems to be an absence of reason behind it. The information from the scientific world doesn't seem to bridge the political force being employed and is lacking in reason as a solution. The mixing of science with politics makes the science less credible.

[Michael Hardner]

Is "reason" concerning the environment being used to employ force or to resolve a problem? In my estimation too much force is being applied and there seems to be an absence of reason behind it. The information from the scientific world doesn't seem to bridge the political force being employed and is lacking in reason as a solution. The mixing of science with politics makes the science less credible.

I'll focus on your last paragraph. The logic employed by the climate change scientists is sound. If there are anomalies or problems with the data that some have chosen to ignore, then that's a problem but on the whole they see a large problem, and have taken it to our leaders for action.

That's the mixing of science and politics that I see, and it's justified.

What "force" or "speed" you're seeing in all of this, I can't say. Despite a large political push, we didn't ratify Kyoto, nor will anything come out of Copenhagen either. That's 20 years of inaction happening - which means no force and no speed in my eyes.

[Pliny]

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...

There we have it again. Another astounding pronouncement - the populace is stupid.

Do you vote, wyly?

[Pliny]

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...

You don't feel represented by government so we need to change the system for you. How about allowing people to think for themselves and keeping government somewhat in check?

WE don't need political representation for everyone with some crackpot special interest who feels slighted by the system and demands a voice for his cause - the problem is we already have too many special interests feeding on government largesse.

[Pliny]

I'll focus on your last paragraph. The logic employed by the climate change scientists is sound. If there are anomalies or problems with the data that some have chosen to ignore, then that's a problem but on the whole they see a large problem, and have taken it to our leaders for action.

That's the mixing of science and politics that I see, and it's justified.

What "force" or "speed" you're seeing in all of this, I can't say. Despite a large political push, we didn't ratify Kyoto, nor will anything come out of Copenhagen either. That's 20 years of inaction happening - which means no force and no speed in my eyes.

We have a carbon tax in BC, Michael. Cap and trade is looming on the horizon (hopefully the revelations will delay it). You perceive a large political push but claim inaction.

Carbon trading has become a part of the economy if you haven't noticed. Maurice Strong is very proud of that fact. Most of it is pushed from the global political community. Corporations have to be perceived to be green to be credible enterprises these days. This is not 20 years of inaction - it is fifty years of lobbying and promoting a cause.

The climate became a concern in the sixties, with global cooling and the coming ice age. It continued in the seventies with acid rain. It built up force in the eighties and nineties and here we are today - actively dumping fertilizer in the ocean for the purpose of absorbing carbon. And you perceive inaction? I'm astounded.

[Michael Hardner]

We have a carbon tax in BC, Michael. Cap and trade is looming on the horizon (hopefully the revelations will delay it). You perceive a large political push but claim inaction.

Carbon trading has become a part of the economy if you haven't noticed. Maurice Strong is very proud of that fact. Most of it is pushed from the global political community. Corporations have to be perceived to be green to be credible enterprises these days. This is not 20 years of inaction - it is fifty years of lobbying and promoting a cause.

The climate became a concern in the sixties, with global cooling and the coming ice age. It continued in the seventies with acid rain. It built up force in the eighties and nineties and here we are today - actively dumping fertilizer in the ocean for the purpose of absorbing carbon. And you perceive inaction? I'm astounded.

You have a strange definition of 'force'. If corporations opt to be green, then that's their option.

People are being convinced, one by one. Even the climate change deniers, who initially claimed that the earth wasn't warming, have changed tack. We're in much better shape, in terms of dialogue, as a result. Climategate may bring skeptics into the fold, and ultimately, could lead to general consensus - with a large vocal minority dragged into it after being given due process.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

[JB Globe]

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.

I wasn't talking about skeptics, I specifically said those people who claim humans aren't affecting the climate, or admit we are but to such a small degree that it's insignificant and we need do nothing - this type of thinking is what I called dishonest or ignorant, and it's these folks who think it's all a "hoax" in the same way that Obama is a "socialist Kenyan"

So how is the anti-climate change lobby propaganda any worse than the propaganda by the climate change lobby?

It's not, but mosts scientists aren't part of any lobbying groups, they're part of scientific panels, and as such they simply report facts to legislative bodies and don't concern themselves with applying political pressure to persuade lawmakers to adopt their schemes - which is the role of industry lobbyists. They're only concern is to present the best data on a complex subject in the most easily-understood manner.

In pure dollar terms more money being spent promoting climate alarmism than opposing it.

Really? I find that hard to believe. While I'm sure there's some money being tossed at "climate alarmism" as you put it, I doubt it comes even close to the denial lobby's efforts - I mean their benefactors include some of the biggest companies in the world (ie - Exxon).

So far, most climate scientists are trying to claim that the scientists did nothing wrong.

Really? Most articles I've read have been critical of those individuals but have pointed out that they are several among several thousand.

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.

And folks on the right are "against climate change" irregardless of data because some of the changes being proposed are things they don't like. It cuts both ways.

Frankly the "denier/believe" dichotomy just doesn't cut it, much like other simplistic labels.