ClimateGate and the Climatati

Pliny · December 8, 2009

oh please Simple... the "American Thinker" has it's foundation firmly entrenched in the Conservative Right-Wing echo chamber. (More politicization, thank you very much)

You prefer the liberal left-wing echo chamber?

Science is after all a place for discussion and discovery not left or right wing ideological conclusion. AGW is a politically correct and not scientific conclusion. Contrary to what the left may think, Science can be explained to the public and they can understand it. There is no resistance from the public when they do not have conflicting or contrary data. Obviously, the conflict is within the scientific community and not everyone in that community is in agreement with the conclusions drawn. Me...I just see too much political opportunism and not enough evidence of "anthropogenic" causation of climate change, I have no qualms accepting the concept of or evidence of climate change. Climate, like anything else in the physical universe, is not static.

Pliny · December 8, 2009

no conspiracy? That just will not do... we've heard throughout this (and other related threads) that "it's just one big conspiracy"... in his over-the-top way, Riverwind brashly claims that the theory of AGW climate change, is a world-wide conspiracy of scientists, of scientific organizations/societies/institutes/etc., of scientific journals, of mainstream media, of the IPCC, etc.; to which he now adds "NGOs, environmental groups, bankers and industrial giants". No conspiracy, hey? Pliny... c'mon... Riverwind's not listening to you... perhaps speak louder!

Riverwind actually realizes there are various interests independent of each other all seeking to "capitalize" on the movement. You are the only one that seems to think there is a singular interest of Anthropogenic global warming behind all the activity.

waldo · December 8, 2009

You prefer the liberal left-wing echo chamber?

what I would prefer is the person who dropped that link (without comment), someone with an obvious agenda... not come on MLW... and not proclaim the article as "troubling", particularly in the absence of actually understanding the nature of the web-site/organization/author. Particularly since the problem of divergence within dendroclimatology is a significant research pursuit to the point, again, that the so-called hiding of data is effectively "hiding data in plain sight"... that we've already discussed on MLW... that Mann (and others) showed that the reconstruction results were essentially identical, whether or not tree-ring proxies were included. But don't let facts get in the way of someone proclaiming an article "troubling", one that includes false accusations of fraud, conspiracy, etc.

waldo · December 8, 2009

Riverwind actually realizes there are various interests independent of each other all seeking to "capitalize" on the movement. You are the only one that seems to think there is a singular interest of Anthropogenic global warming behind all the activity.

oh please - the false conspiracy that Riverwind trumpets at every/any opportunity can't be placated with deflection pursuits (subtle, or otherwise)... the deniers principal conspirators (in "falsely" proclaiming the science), fuel the effort/resolve of the deniers secondary conspirators (to "profit" from the so-called false scientific proclamations). C'mon Pliny... don't deflect... you should double-down on the conspiracy - you can make some cash, right? :lol:

eyeball · December 8, 2009

I would hate to see political/economic expediency create a social upheaval that is unwarranted if there is no anthropogenic influence.

I't would be a drag all right, but tolerable compared to the possibility that not doing anything will result in a even worse collapse. Its just this simple, if the economy takes a hit and we're wrong so be it, its not the end of the world, we can carry on where we left off and the economy will recover soon enough. You might not be able to say the same about the opposite however. If the environment takes a big enough hit and it takes too long to recover or doesn't then we're totally screwed.

In any case, I'm not at all convinced that the economy will be devastated by taking action on AGW, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that economic alarmism is based on levels of fudged data and publication bias that would make even the most jaded climatologist blush.

I'll take the risk of being half screwed over the risk of being totally screwed. A precautionary principle and approach is the only real option.

Riverwind · December 8, 2009

I'll take the risk of being half screwed over the risk of being totally screwed. A precautionary principle and approach is the only real option.

Easy to preach about the precautionary principle when you expect someone else to pay the price.

eyeball · December 8, 2009

Easy to preach about the precautionary principle when you expect someone else to pay the price.

Where on Earth do you get off saying that? I fully expect to take as much of a hit as anyone else. Why wouldn't I?

waldo · December 8, 2009

since we're talking about politicization, about "conspiracy"... while blindly dropping links... I particularly favour this bloggers take on the "The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy"

whether it was tobacco... ozone... or (now) climate change, the campaign tactics are well established... well followed - we see a mini variant of the following played out quite regularly on MLW, thank you very much!

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.
- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

Michael Hardner · December 8, 2009

Where on Earth do you get off saying that? I fully expect to take as much of a hit as anyone else. Why wouldn't I?

I scratch my head as to why this discussion can't proceed without accusations of alternate motives, laziness, finger-pointing....

waldo · December 8, 2009

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

- not according to the U.S. Supreme Court

- not according to the EPA, now obligated by the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling to follow it's mandate/obligations under the U.S. Clean Air Act

the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare

- not according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that has now just recently released it's Endangerment & Cause or Contribute Findings --- Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF)

- not according to the EPA that is now meandering down the legal battle towards regulation

(on edit: updated reference links (i.e., changed http addressing))

Edited September 24, 2012 by waldo

Riverwind · December 8, 2009

- not according to the EPA that is now meandering down the legal battle towards regulation

ROTFL. The EPA ruling was purely political and has nothing to with science or even common sense.

Riverwind · December 8, 2009

Where on Earth do you get off saying that? I fully expect to take as much of a hit as anyone else. Why wouldn't I?

You have expressed a desire to soak the rich on many occasions. You also made it clear that cutting social programs to pay for environmental virtue was unacceptable. Edited December 8, 2009 by Riverwind

waldo · December 8, 2009

ROTFL. The EPA ruling was purely political and has nothing to with science or even common sense.

so... I expect you will now add the EPA... and the U.S. Supreme Court... to your list of co-conspirators. Actually, if you choose to read the court ruling, you will find the grounds for ruling, grounds that are neither political or grounded in common sense - rather, grounds that are firmly entrenched in the U.S. law, Congressional extension and EPA mandated obligations. But you shouldn't aim your target at the EPA since it held off for many years... until "it" finally wound it's way through the legal system right up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Still laughing... still rolling... still on the floor? :lol:

Pliny · December 8, 2009

I'll take the risk of being half screwed over the risk of being totally screwed. A precautionary principle and approach is the only real option.

What do you mean by a precautionary approach?

As I said, I'm all for scientific/technological innovation to ameliorate our carbon footprint. You seem to support political/economic solutions that don't go beyond the Robin Hood mentality of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

Pliny · December 8, 2009

Where on Earth do you get off saying that? I fully expect to take as much of a hit as anyone else. Why wouldn't I?

Let me guess - out of some concept you will get it back on the receiving end?

Pliny · December 8, 2009

- not according to the U.S. Supreme Court

- not according to the EPA, now obligated by the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court ruling to follow it's mandate/obligations under the Clean Air Act

- not according to the EPA that has now just recently released it's Endangerment & Cause or Contribute Findings

- not according to the EPA that is now meandering down the legal battle towards regulation

Does it end in a tax on "living and breathing"?

Pliny · December 8, 2009

I scratch my head as to why this discussion can't proceed without accusations of alternate motives, laziness, finger-pointing....

What is it you really want to know, Michael? You'll have to look some things up yourself.

And who are you suggesting is guilty of these things? :lol: Sorry, if I laugh at my own jokes?

Pliny · December 8, 2009

so... I expect you will now add the EPA... and the U.S. Supreme Court... to your list of co-conspirators. Actually, if you choose to read the court ruling, you will find the grounds for ruling, grounds that are neither political or grounded in common sense - rather, grounds that are firmly entrenched in the U.S. law, Congressional extension and EPA mandated obligations. But you shouldn't aim your target at the EPA since it held off for many years... until "it" finally wound it's way through the legal system right up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Still laughing... still rolling... still on the floor?

How can we make some cash on this, Waldo? We need to join this conspiracy. Delete this.....I'll tell Wyly to get on board. The Al Gore lifestyle are the stakes?

Michael Hardner · December 8, 2009

What is it you really want to know, Michael? You'll have to look some things up yourself.

And who are you suggesting is guilty of these things? :lol: Sorry, if I laugh at my own jokes?

Anybody who refers to conspiracies, oil company shills, or groups of bespeckled plotters with tiny beads of sweat on their bald heads rubbing their hands together.

jbg · December 9, 2009

The alarmists are getting ever more frantic - they know the gig is almost up. Here's how Copenhagen opened up:

It's a very typical and bogus appeal to human instincts to love children. I doubt very many of the government ministers are likely to pick daisies with any little girl, other than maybe their daughters (and even then rarely). These tactics are manipulative in the extreme.

jbg · December 9, 2009

I suggest you direct such criticisms at the alarmists who insist that climategate is the result of some organized conspiracy by the 'denial industry'.

Why not raise that question at a PowerCorp. shareholders' meeting?

jbg · December 9, 2009

Given that the US is far ahead of us in environmental legislation and emission controlsm, your post is nonsense.

When aren't his posts nonesense? Him, whoweeeee and Myopiayata are the leader in nonesense posts, up there with "Benny".

Argus · December 9, 2009

What you seem to be failing to understand is that a scientists' opinion (unlike that of e.g. unqualified, clueless onlooker) is not a matter of preference, choice, or liking.

If there's one thing the hacked emails show it's that you're quite mistaken. Scientists actually do show a preference, only release information which supports their theories, hide facts and data and twist things to suit themselves.

BubberMiley · December 9, 2009

If there's one thing the hacked emails show it's that you're quite mistaken.

No, the one thing those hacked emails have shown is the lengths people go to take things out of context to try to sway the opinions of the uninformed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

Michael Hardner · December 9, 2009

No, the one thing those hacked emails have shown is the lengths people go to take things out of context to try to sway the opinions of the uninformed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

The uninformed need to have their opinions swayed, and if Climate Science doesn't think it's important to do so, then climate skeptics will.

This article from Huffington understates the amount of damage this revelations would do to those who have no context to how the scientific community works. Although I do think that the damage to the science has been overstated, the damage to public opinion hasn't.