Climategate Email Leak 2.0

[August1991]

A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

The Guardian

Here is a link to all the leaked emails, and in particular a readme.txt that the leakers wrote to provide context for their actions: Link

I found this quote in the readme.txt telling:

"Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day."

"Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes."

"One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true.

"Poverty is a death sentence."

"Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize

greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

In effect, we must choose. It is naive and wrong to believe that we don't face a choice because we can have both le beurre et l'argent du beurre. We can't. When people argue that we must reduce CO2 emissions, there will be costs and someone will have to bear these costs. The resources used to reduce CO2 emissions could have been used elsewhere. In particular, instead of building windmills in Holland, we could be saving lives in Africa.

----

After a quick perusal of some of these emails, I was also struck by their comparison to the behaviour of scientists at CERN, where recent results suggest that neutrinos can possibly travel faster than light. In the case of CERN, the scientists have made all their data and calculations public. They have invited (even pleaded with) other experts to find fault or error.

In the case of East Anglia, the behaviour is entirely different. The emails suggest obfuscation, playing on perceptions and altering data sets. This is not the scientific method. It is the the "science" of Tycho Brahe.

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[Post To The Left]

The true climategate is how conservative groups are trying to deny the fact of global warming. When they are forced to follow the rules even they have to admit global warming is real! The big oil group the, Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, "widely seen as a source of money for conservative organizations and initiatives that have fought efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions" funded a study to prove global warming isn't rule ... the only thing is, it backfired and in fact proved global warming exists!

Climate study, funded in part by conservative group, confirms global warming

A new climate study shows that since the mid-1950s, global average temperatures over land have risen by 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.6 degrees Fahrenheit), confirming previous studies that have found a climate that has been warming – in fits and starts – since around 1900.

Most climate scientists attribute warming since the mid-1950, at least to some degree, to carbon dioxide emissions from human activities – burning coal, oil, and to a lesser extent gas, and from land-use changes.

The latest results mirror those from earlier, independent studies by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Britain, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

[August1991]

The true climategate is how conservative groups are trying to deny the fact of global warming.

No, the true "climategate" is that we are polluting our environment because it is costless for most people to do this.

Is global warming due to CO2 emissions a major problem? I don't know. Based on the evidence, it appears that we just don't know enough to draw any clear conclusions.

Meanwhile, oil containers clean their holds in the open ocean, trawlers fish outside international waters depleting fish stocks (eg. Atlantic cod) and most cars/vehicles around the world still use leaded gasoline. Many people around the world dump garbage near where they live, and their sewage typically goes "into the ground".

All forms of other plant/animal life are affected.

----

Meanwhile, because of untested CO2 fears, we are wasting resources, tilting at windmills.

=====

IMHO, environmental protection is important although I prefer the word "stewardship". The earth is a natural gift and its resources should not be wasted. I happen to think these resources belong to all of us, and good stewardship means that we should collectively charge for their use.

I am angered that the Left has tried to make this serious environmental/stewardship issue its own. They are called watermelons: green on the outside, left on the inside.

Protection of the environment, stewardship, is a serious matter. AGW and climate change are evidence that the modern Left has once again bungled.

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[dre]

and their sewage typically goes "into the ground".

Its animal shit dude. Where else it is supposed to go? In the air? Space? The moon?

Edited November 23, 2011 by dre

[August1991]

Its animal shit dude. Where else it is supposed to go? In the air? Space? The moon?

Do you own an aquarium? Does it have a filter?

A few of us can live in our own excrement, but not beyond a certain point. That's the principle of wine. The microbes eat sugar, produce alcohol and die in their own excrement - eventually stopping the process. The earth can absorb sh*t, but no longer in concentrated Shanghai, Mexico City form.

-----

My point above is that "the environment", like health care in Canada, too often appears to be free. As a result, people abuse it.

IMV, the environment requires better stewardship. As for Canadian health care, I think ordinary people (eg. me) should also know that it's not "free" when we use it.

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[TimG]

The true climategate is how conservative groups are trying to deny the fact of global warming.

Nonsense. You are beating up strawmen. This debate is about whether CO2 mitigation policies make any economic sense. But the various eco-activists/socialists have decided that they don't want to actually debate economic policy because if they did they would have no argument. So instead they pretend it is about science in the hope of befuddling enough people to push some of their incoherent policies. Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[Guest Manny]

It's ok. All things must eventually come to an end, and we are now seeing the impending demise of our civilization. We cannot stop the machine we've made. Perhaps there will be another ice age, that will crush everything man has ever made into tiny granules. Life will dwindle to the point of utter extinction, but likely will not completely die off. It may resort back to a planet of microbes and fungus, as it has at times in the past. Then there will be a rebuilding, life will flourish again. This is the cycle of things. It is right and good.

[August1991]

This debate is about whether CO2 mitigation policies make any economic sense.

The debate is whether CO2 mitigation policies make any environmental sense.

Leftists, with an agenda to change the world in Occupy Style, used CO2 emissions to make their point.

These Leftists, like the Occupy movement, have failed.

Meanwhile, the environment still requires good stewardship. For example, Alberta should set royalty rates accurately, and Hydro-Quebec should sell its electricity at a market price. No one in the world should produce or sell leaded gasoline.

We have serious known environmental problems. CO2 has been a potential asteroid red herring, unfortunately adopted by some Leftists to further their ideology.

[TimG]

The debate is whether CO2 mitigation policies make any environmental sense.

That too. But if you start arguing that you end up arguing with computer models which, of course, are "omniscient".

Meanwhile, the environment still requires good stewardship. For example, Alberta should set royalty rates accurately, and Hydro-Quebec should sell its electricity at a market price. No one in the world should produce or sell leaded gasoline.

The CO2 obsession was the worst thing that ever happened to environmental movement. It is sucking energy away from important issues like protecting water.

[cybercoma]

Based on the evidence, it appears that we just don't know enough to draw any clear conclusions.

Maybe you don't know enough to draw any conclusions, but people that study the environment for a living have already drawn a conclusion a long time ago. You just refuse to acknowledge it because it might cost too much money.

[TimG]

but people that study the environment for a living have already drawn a conclusion a long time ago.

So why are people qualified to study the environment qualified to be authorities on the best course of action that takes into account economic and technological constraints? It is rather ridiculous to appeal to the authority of a group of people that have no expertise on questions that need to be answered. Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Is global warming due to CO2 emissions a major problem? I don't know. Based on the evidence, it appears that we just don't know enough to draw any clear conclusions.

Only a fringe minority of scientists believe this... and sadly now you do too.

This is what happens when the MSM frames the climate debate as a political catfight.

[Michael Hardner]

We have serious known environmental problems. CO2 has been a potential asteroid red herring, unfortunately adopted by some Leftists to further their ideology.

You are the one who is falling under the spell of ideology here. Climate scientists have had CO2 has a greenhouse gas for decades, and because of some inflammatory red-baiting journalism, their basic theories are now seen as some kind of heresy.

It's just a shame...

[TimG]

Climate scientists have had CO2 has a greenhouse gas for decades, and because of some inflammatory red-baiting journalism, their basic theories are now seen as some kind of heresy.

The basic premise of GHGs is not really disputed. The problem is when scientists start advocating that governments adapt specific policies. i.e. a climate science may believe that reducing CO2 is good idea but that gives him/her no special insight into whether it economically or technically possible.

IOW - if scientists play politics they will be treated like politicians. if they don't like that then they should be stick to the science and stop pretending they know what can be done.

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The basic premise of GHGs is not really disputed. The problem is when scientists start advocating that governments adapt specific policies. i.e. a climate science may believe that reducing CO2 is good idea but that gives him/her no special insight into whether it economically or technically possible.

I concur with part of what you posted. The economic science around policy is not discussed enough... the UN plan seems terribly flawed from what I've read.

But I have a strong opposition to people tearing down any institution that is still standing just because it's fashionable to do so. I'm starting to understand what it must have felt like to be over 30 in the 1960s.

Edit: You changed your post, so I had to as well.

[August1991]

Maybe you don't know enough to draw any conclusions, but people that study the environment for a living have already drawn a conclusion a long time ago. You just refuse to acknowledge it because it might cost too much money.

On the contrary, the effect of human CO2, or other human forcing emissions, are just not evident.

Read the emails. Look at the reports. Heck, read threads on this forum.

We simply don't understand how the earth arrives at a temperature. Clouds are a tremendous factor, the sun too, and the oceans absorb CO2 and heat. Go figure.

If 6 billion people drive SUVs and fly to Paris in an Airbus 380 every week, will it change things? We don't know. Are the tar sands/oil sands a major change? We don't know.

----

My default opinion is what my mother taught me: Leave a place as good as you found it: Fold the sheets.

----

Around the world, people face local environmental problems. Collectively, we face huge environmental problems.

When the UN/IPCC and so-called experts argue that "global warming/climate change/AGW/etc" have caused tremendous harm to the environment, I disagree.

IMV, we must instead help people to live better, and protect their local environment.

Edited November 23, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

The emails of Climategate were specifically selected to fool people like you, Auguste. Much was implied as to a global conspiracy, but the only thing that was clear was that they didn't respond to FOI requests.

[TimG]

But I have a strong opposition to people tearing down any institution that is still standing just because it's fashionable to do so. I'm starting to understand what it must have felt like to be over 30 in the 1960s.

I think it is worth remembering is it takes 2 to tango. I have lost track of the number of activists who claim that people who oppose mitigation policies because of the economics are 'denying the science'. Such a strategy forces people response by attacking the credibility of the scientists.

[August1991]

The emails of Climategate were specifically selected to fool people like you, Auguste. Much was implied as to a global conspiracy, but the only thing that was clear was that they didn't respond to FOI requests.

Michael, are the leaks false?

You use the word "selected". Does that matter?

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, are the leaks false?

You use the word "selected". Does that matter?

Out of context, they are misleading... yes it matters.

What do you think when you read a leaked private email from a climate scientist who says it's a travesty that we can't show warming?

I ask you... does it sound like a cover up?

[jbg]

The true climategate is how conservative groups are trying to deny the fact of global warming.

Oh yes. How about the possibility, also quite real, that there are warming and cooling cycles?

[Michael Hardner]

Oh yes. How about the possibility, also quite real, that there are warming and cooling cycles?

I do think that has been considered.

[TimG]

Out of context, they are misleading... yes it matters.

Sorry. That is just talking point with no substance.

The e-mail have enough context to expose the writers as individuals who are obessed with protecting their 'cause' and feel no guilt about misleading the public about the state of the science. There is no "context" that could possibly change that impression.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry. That is just talking point with no substance.

The e-mail have enough context to expose the writers as individuals who are obessed with protecting their 'cause' and feel no guilt about misleading the public about the state of the science. There is no "context" that could possibly change that impression.

Does my example show this?

[TimG]

I do think that has been considered.

There are no definitive proofs in this field. It has been dismissed because the current paradigm requires that it be dismissed. In 10 years we may find the paradigm shifts. It always is important to distinguish between what is actually known (CO2 is GHG) vs. what is speculation (emissions will lead to X degC of warming). Speculation can change. Actual facts won't. Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG