ClimateGate and the Climatati

[Riverwind]

I didn't say that the media wouldn't use the information, I said that some involved may refuse to comment because he information was obtained illegally.

Can you give me examples where the media had zero coverage of a story because of how the information was obtained (keep in mind the information is confirmed to legimate - it is only the means of acquistion which is in question).

Sorry - you say Zero coverage, then provide links to NP, and CBS articles ?

I said zero coverage in the G&M and the CBC - major media outlets in this country.

[Goat Boy©]

I said zero coverage in the G&M and the CBC - major media outlets in this country.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/26/climate-change-hack.html

Albeit, rather slanted like everything else on CBC these days. They'll soon be competing with fox news if they keep this up.

[Riverwind]

Academic papers can be published, reviewed and judged on their own merits. There's no evil cabal that controls the minds of the world's scientists. Studies are funded by government and private industry.

Have you even looked at the emails and the allegations? These guys used their position as senior academics to blackmail journals that published sceptical papers. The process has been rigged. Papers are not judged on their merit. They are judged on whether they support the IPCC party line.

What we do have is two separate forums: the public sphere and the academic sphere. The public sphere is completely open and mitigated by major media players. The academic sphere is closed to scientists, however both spheres are 'open' in that dissenting opinions are advanced and debated.

You are complete denial. In climate science dissenting opinions are suppressed by people like Mann and Jones. There is no open debate.

I just found this. Rumours are that UEA is asking someone with a strong pro-AGW alarmist bias to head up the investigation. If confirmed, any report will be a whitewash and it is further evidence of the corruption in our scientific institutions and why we cannot trust what they tell us about AGW.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Albeit, rather slanted like everything else on CBC these days. They'll soon be competing with fox news if they keep this up.

I stand corrected. Only took them a week and the CBC ombusdman has received complaints. Still nothing in the G&M though.

[Riverwind]

I really don't believe that this proves or disproves man-made global warming at all. This says to me, some scientists responsible for collecting and collating data lied. The penalties for lying are unparalleled economic consequences, however it doesn't mean that the possibility of us changing the planet in a negative fashion is disproven.

We don't have any proof that is occurring either. All we have is a 'consensus' of scientists deciding what data to look at and what data to ignore. We have clear evidence that this 'consensus' is a fiction driven by the need to support the IPCC political objectives. We need to investigate.

[Goat Boy©]

We don't have any proof that is occurring either. All we have is a 'consensus' of scientists deciding what data to look at and what data to ignore. We have clear evidence that this 'consensus' is a fiction driven by the need to support the IPCC political objectives. We need to investigate.

The theory of global warming is un-provable. You cannot draw a conclusion from an experiment when you cannot control the environment and contributing factors. The system is too complex.

My problem with it, is that it has turned religious. "No!" "Because it is!" "Well, I believe it!" "We already have the answer, why look at other things?"

Logical thinking has been lost somewhere along the way of group-think and money bags......things like kyoto are a complete waste of time, so by effectively doing nothing we end up worse than when we started because of the net loss in energy dedicated.

It's time to go back to the drawing board, and start again. I don't think we'll like what we find.

[Michael Hardner]

Can you give me examples where the media had zero coverage of a story because of how the information was obtained (keep in mind the information is confirmed to legimate - it is only the means of acquistion which is in question).

I said zero coverage in the G&M and the CBC - major media outlets in this country.

1. To be clear - I think that that factor may have delayed the coverage. Overall, I think that this will be a big story but that it will be slow to get traction.

2. Ok - I didn't realize the qualifier.

You are correct:

climategate site:cbc.ca

0 hits

However there is coverage of the event, they just didn't call it 'climategate'. Curiously, the GlobeAndMail - which is considered more conservative - has no coverage whatsoever.

[Michael Hardner]

Have you even looked at the emails and the allegations? These guys used their position as senior academics to blackmail journals that published sceptical papers. The process has been rigged. Papers are not judged on their merit. They are judged on whether they support the IPCC party line.

You are complete denial. In climate science dissenting opinions are suppressed by people like Mann and Jones. There is no open debate.

I just found this. Rumours are that UEA is asking someone with a strong pro-AGW alarmist bias to head up the investigation. If confirmed, any report will be a whitewash and it is further evidence of the corruption in our scientific institutions and why we cannot trust what they tell us about AGW.

Yes, I looked at them. Again, you can't postulate that this is happening globally because of some bad behaviors. I read the link, and I'm glad that they're looking into this.

[Michael Hardner]

The theory of global warming is un-provable. You cannot draw a conclusion from an experiment when you cannot control the environment and contributing factors. The system is too complex.

My problem with it, is that it has turned religious. "No!" "Because it is!" "Well, I believe it!" "We already have the answer, why look at other things?"

Logical thinking has been lost somewhere along the way of group-think and money bags......things like kyoto are a complete waste of time, so by effectively doing nothing we end up worse than when we started because of the net loss in energy dedicated.

It's time to go back to the drawing board, and start again. I don't think we'll like what we find.

This time we have to ask the responsible skeptics first what they want us to change in the current system so that they will buy in. That said, we have seen with the 9/11 lunacy that you can revise and review the facts as requested (as was done in the NIST study of WTC 7) and some will still cry 'conspiracy'.

[Riverwind]

Yes, I looked at them. Again, you can't postulate that this is happening globally because of some bad behaviors. I read the link, and I'm glad that they're looking into this.

The background you are missing is the evidence compiled over the years by people like SteveMc, Pielke Sr, Pielke Jr., Roy Spenser, et. al. They have been directly involved in the process and have documented many examples of bias, tunnel vision and a desire to suppress views that do not support the IPCC. These emails are the first independent evidence that what those SteveMc and others were saying is likely true. That is why the problems are unlikely to be confined to the people captured in the emails and it is naive to assume it is an isolated problem. Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Goat Boy©]

This time we have to ask the responsible skeptics first what they want us to change in the current system so that they will buy in. That said, we have seen with the 9/11 lunacy that you can revise and review the facts as requested (as was done in the NIST study of WTC 7) and some will still cry 'conspiracy'.

In my view, the science of it is irrelevant.

Even to return to 1990 levels of pollution, there are two billion additional people on the planet. Every single one of those people has energy requirements to one extent or another, to even consider removing the last two decades of pollution there has to be a drastic reduction in standard of living for everybody on the planet, or brand new miracle technologies to move forward. Neither of those things are happening, standard of living is going up just about everywhere, and true 'green' technology is in infancy.

Until one of those things changes, everything we're doing right now is a waste. Well, not entirely a waste, but trying to bail out a sinking ferry with a thimble isn't going to change the result in the long run. I've long suspected that the group of persons responsible are profiting handsomely, I'm waiting in earnest to find out if that is true.

[Goat Boy©]

The background you are missing is the evidence compiled over the years by people like SteveMc, Pielke Sr, Pielke Jr., Roy Spenser, et. al. They have been directly involved in the process and have documented many examples of bias, tunnel vision and a desire to suppress views that do not support the IPCC. These emails are the first independent evidence that what those SteveMc and others were saying is likely true. That is why the problems are unlikely to be confined to the people captured in the emails and it is naive to assume it is an isolated problem.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science:

You're a respected scientist, one of the best in your field. So respected, in fact, that when the United Nations decided to study the relationship between hurricanes and global warming for the largest scientific endeavor in its history -- its International Panel on Climate Change -- it called upon you and your expertise.

You are Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory. You were a contributing author for the UN's second International Panel on Climate Change in 1995, writing the sections on observed changes in tropical cyclones around the world. Then the IPCC called on you as a contributing author once more, for its "Third Assessment Report" in 2001. And you were invited to participate yet again, when the IPCC called on you to be an author in the "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, your specialty, and be published by the IPCC in 2007.

Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.

As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, you knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin.

To add to the utter incomprehensibility of the press conference, the IPCC itself, in both 1995 and 2001, had found no global warming signal in the hurricane record. And until your new work would come out, in 2007, the IPCC would not have a new analysis on which to base a change of findings.

To stop the press conference, or at least stop any misunderstandings that might come out of it, you contacted Dr. Trenberth prior to the media event. You prepared a synopsis for him that brought him up to date on the state of knowledge about hurricane formation. To your amazement, he simply dismissed your concerns. The press conference proceeded.

And what a press conference it was! Hurricanes had been all over the news that summer. Global warming was the obvious culprit -- only a fool or an oil-industry lobbyist, the press made clear, could ignore the link between what seemed to be ever increasing hurricane activity and ever increasing global warming. The press conference didn't disappoint them. The climate change experts at hand all confirmed the news that the public had been primed to hear: Global warming was causing hurricanes. This judgement from the scientists made headlines around the world, just as it was intended to do. What better way to cast global warming as catastrophic than to make hurricanes its poster child?

You wanted to right this outrageous wrong, this mockery that was made of your scientific field. You wrote top IPCC officials, imploring: "Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? What studies are being alluded to that have shown a connection between observed warming trends on the earth and long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity? As far as I know, there are none." But no one in the IPCC leadership showed the slightest concern for the science. The IPCC's overriding preoccupation, it soon sunk in, lay in capitalizing on the publicity opportunity that the hurricane season presented.

You then asked the IPCC leadership for assurances that your work for the IPCC's 2007 report would be true to science: "[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have already come to the conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity and has publicly stated so. This does not reflect the consensus within the hurricane research community. ... Thus I would like assurance that what will be included in the IPCC report will reflect the best available information and the consensus within the scientific community most expert on the specific topic."

The assurance didn't come. What did come was the realization that the IPCC was corrupting science. This you could not be a party to. You then resigned, in an open letter to the scientific community laying out your reasons.

Next year, the IPCC will come out with its "Fourth Assessment Report," and for the first time in a decade, you will not be writing its section on hurricanes. That task will be left to the successor that Dr. Trenberth chose. As part of his responsibility, he will need to explain why -- despite all expectations -- the 2006 hurricane year was so unexpectedly light, and at the historical average for the past 150 years.

- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute, divisions of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Goat Boy©

[Riverwind]

This time we have to ask the responsible skeptics first what they want us to change in the current system so that they will buy in.

Three things would be a start:

1) An end to secrecy. Data and methods should be available to all.

2) Constructive engagement with non-scientist but otherwise qualified sceptics like SteveMc.

3) The addition of a 'minority report' to the IPCC process. i.e. scientists who disagree with the consensus would be invited to compile a seperate IPCC document that lays out their position.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Three things would be a start:

1) An end to secrecy. Data and methods should be available to all.

2) Constructive engagement with non-scientist but otherwise qualified sceptics like SteveMc.

3) The addition of a 'minority report' to the IPCC process. i.e. scientists who disagree with the consensus would be invited to compile a seperate IPCC document that lays out their position.

Actually, these seem like reasonable accommodations to me. But be careful what you ask for. More inclusion in the process may actually lead to consensus and then action, even if if there is still a strong dissenting opinion in the minority.

Something like - you've had your say, but we still think that we're right, and that AGW is a threat, now let's move forward with that Carbon Tax.

I've always thought that the biggest problem with Global Warming was there was no global forum to discuss such problems.

[Riverwind]

Actually, these seem like reasonable accommodations to me. But be careful what you ask for. More inclusion in the process may actually lead to consensus and then action, even if if there is still a strong dissenting opinion in the minority.

Doesn't bother me. My entire issue is the scientific process has been taken over by alarmist fanatics who manipulate data and results to support their position and seek to suppress minority opinions. Fix that and I would accept the outcome of the process. However, fixing the process will require some significant cultural changes within the scientific community and I am not convinced they will occur without some strong arming by the legislatures that pay their salaries.

However, you need to remember that fixing process might simply re-affirm the basis for AGW but result in completely different discussions of public policies. i.e. an end to discussions of cap™ and global carbon managment regimes and a focus more on adaptation and development of alternate energy sources.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shady]

Actually, these seem like reasonable accommodations to me. But be careful what you ask for. More inclusion in the process may actually lead to consensus and then action

Seems like it was the pro-global warming scientists who were afraid of inclusion in the process, and are afraid of what might come of it.

[Michael Hardner]

Doesn't bother me. My entire issue is the scientific process has been taken over by alarmist fanatics who manipulate data and results to support their position and seek to suppress minority opinions. Fix that and I would accept the outcome of the process.

However, you need to remember that fixing process might simply re-affirm the basis for AGW but result in completely different discussions of public policies. i.e. an end to discussions of cap&trade and global carbon managment regimes and a focus more on adaptation and development of alternate energy sources.

Yes, and that's fine with me too. Honestly, I just checked into the topic of AGW again after years of staying out of it, and it appears to me that if the dire predictions are to be believed, then adaptation may be the better approach.

BTW - you do realize that cap & trade to reduce emissions was used by George Bush's EPA to successfully address acid rain right ? It's goal was to give business some options rather than just taxing/prosecuting businesses.

[Michael Hardner]

Seems like it was the pro-global warming scientists who were afraid of inclusion in the process, and are afraid of what might come of it.

That's right. I'm glad that there are some that are not so religious that they can feel compelled to speak out against what has happened and call for inquiry. I'm thinking of George Monbiot here.

[Riverwind]

BTW - you do realize that cap & trade to reduce emissions was used by George Bush's EPA to successfully address acid rain right ? It's goal was to give business some options rather than just taxing/prosecuting businesses.

Apples and Oranges.

One difference is cost effective technology to reduce SO2 emissions already existed and cap and trade simply allowed businesses to plan the transition on a schedule that made sense to them. When it comes to CO2 the alternate technologies simply do not exist so any promises to reduce emissions will be either ignored or accomplish their goal by pushing the economy into a recession/depression.

Another difference is acid rain was a regional issue and Canada and the US could trust each other to abide by any terms of the deal. CO2 is a global issue and corrupt regimes like China will ignore any deal they sign which would render any sacrifices in Canada and US irrelevant.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

Apples and Oranges.

One difference is cost effective technology to reduce SO2 emissions already existed and cap and trade simply allowed businesses to plan the transition on a schedule that made sense to them. When it comes to CO2 the alternate technologies simply do not exist so any promises to reduce emissions will be either ignored or accomplish their goal by pushing the economy into a recession/depression.

Another difference is acid rain was a regional issue and Canada and the US could trust each other to abide by any terms of the deal. CO2 is a global issue and corrupt regimes like China will ignore any deal they sign which would render any sacrifices in Canada and US irrelevant.

Ok. It sounded earlier that you had a problem with cap & trade on its own, but form this post it seems that you accept the concept of cap & trade, as long as there's proper technology in place, and an accepted arbiter.

[Riverwind]

Ok. It sounded earlier that you had a problem with cap & trade on its own, but form this post it seems that you accept the concept of cap & trade, as long as there's proper technology in place, and an accepted arbiter.

With CO2 there can never be a reliable arbiter because of the global scope. Carbon taxes are the best way to go provided the regional disparities are taken into account. i.e. you can't punish Albertans with punative carbon taxes and use the money to give tax rebates to Quebequers. If money from a carbon tax is collected in Alberta it should stay in Alberta.

[Riverwind]

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've decided to keep us in the dark.

[wyly]

Both are the reason. Ignoring the suns effect is like ignoring the blazing fire in the hearth then turning the electric heaters on full bore and then wondering why it gets so hot.

And the sun has been getting brighter over the years that's what stars do as they age.

that's absolutely false...research has ruled out any connection between the suns activity and recent warming, it's just the opposite...don't believe it go find a reputable link proving otherwise...

[waldo]

The background you are missing is the evidence compiled over the years by people like SteveMc, Pielke Sr, Pielke Jr., Roy Spenser, et. al. They have been directly involved in the process and have documented many examples of bias, tunnel vision and a desire to suppress views that do not support the IPCC. These emails are the first independent evidence that what those SteveMc and others were saying is likely true. That is why the problems are unlikely to be confined to the people captured in the emails and it is naive to assume it is an isolated problem.

McIntyre is a blogger, not a scientist and publishes nothing himself (he's irrelevant)... Pielke Sr./Jr are somewhat prolific in their published papers... Spenser, the Intelligent Design quack, also has papers published. Is there a problem? Are you saying they've not been able to get certain papers published? You did link to an expressed example where Pielke Sr. whined that a comment of his toward another paper wasn't getting any notice - you failed to also mention that he properly proceeded to work with others to publish a paper representative of the comment he whined about. You know... through the peer-review process you so label as biased.

All you've got to support your wildly trumped up, over-the-top claims of "intimidation" toward peer-review submission/processing is cryptic hacked email reference that reflects upon a single journal (Climate Research) – editors (Chris de Freitas & Hans von Storch) and, in particular, the published Soon/Baliunas paper… a paper that never should have been published given it offered nothing within it to support the conclusion made. Again, are you prepared to support that completely and absolutely discredited paper?... discredited by the streams of follow-up formal peer-response comment/paper… coupled with the fact that 13 of the cited authors within the Soon/Baliunas paper refuted the paper’s interpretation of their work.

That paper shouldn't have been published... on it's merit (rather, lack of)... the complete and absolute bias of the editor de Freitas is there for the record, and has been written of, extensively. Your scurrilous accusation of conspiracy is negated by the AGU's open transparency... and the 'nothingness within that hacked email reference. Your claims of "blackmail" are ludicrous. But you have no problem in twisting and churning this to presume to question peer-review and ultimately (your real agenda) the basis for AGW. Elsewhere we've addressed the inherent problems within peer-review where certain papers are published... papers that shouldn't have been... papers that are invariably rooted out by the follow-up peer-response, as was the case with that Soon/Baliunas paper that was so absolutely refuted in the follow-up peer-response.

Give it up... there is no there, there!

[waldo]

Doesn't bother me. My entire issue is the scientific process has been taken over by alarmist fanatics who manipulate data and results to support their position and seek to suppress minority opinions. Fix that and I would accept the outcome of the process. However, fixing the process will require some significant cultural changes within the scientific community and I am not convinced they will occur without some strong arming by the legislatures that pay their salaries.

The basis for your wide-sweeping (or specific) claims of data/results manipulation would be... what, exactly?

The basis for your wide-sweeping (or specific) claims of suppressing minority opinions would be... what, exactly?