Climategate Email Leak 2.0

[TimG]

Does my example show this?

What? Tremberth admits to his buddies that the sceptics are right and there a gap between the measured temperatures and the models? How is that out of context? Knowing that he thinks that they can adjust the data instead of changing the theory does not help his case. Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

What? Tremberth admits to his buddies that the sceptics are right and there a gap between the measured temperatures and the models? How is that out of context? Knowing that he thinks that they can adjust the data instead of changing the theory does not help his case.

From what I read, this wasn't a private admission - he had already said as much publicly, so why is it news?

[TimG]

From what I read, this wasn't a private admission - he had already said as much publicly, so why is it news?

It might have been known to a narrow circle of scientists but it certainly was not widely known. In fact, anytime a sceptic pointed out the truth the sceptic was attacked by alarmists for 'denying the science'. This makes it extremely relevant and makes it quite disingenuous for alarmists to claim that it was public knowledge now. Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[August1991]

From what I read, this wasn't a private admission - he had already said as much publicly, so why is it news?

Michael, you are admirably reasonable.

I aspire to your reasonable open minded approach.

-----

Now, compare the East Anglia people with the CERN people: Speed of light and global warming.

Who is correct, curious, scientific?

[Michael Hardner]

It might have been known to a narrow circle of scientists but it certainly was not widely known. In fact, anytime a sceptic pointed out the truth the sceptic was attacked by alarmists for 'denying the science'. This makes it extremely relevant and makes it quite disingenuous for alarmists to claim that it was public knowledge now.

But the general public, hearing of an email 'leak' was given the impression by the MSM that this was a candid admission. Nothing in climate science is 'widely known' unless the MSM makes a political fight out of it.

[Michael Hardner]

Now, compare the East Anglia people with the CERN people: Speed of light and global warming.

Who is correct, curious, scientific?

Both of them. The political lens is provided by media who watches from the sidelines and makes it into a political fight. Eventually the players do become combative because of the glare of the camera, and their natural professional pride - but they are necessarily honest about the science they produce because it is picked apart.

You aren't aware of the science - I suggest you engage Waldo if you want to know some facts. He's ornery, rude and dismissive but he knows his stuff.

[cybercoma]

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.

Sorry, did I say that? Because went back and read through the replies and I don't see where I said that.

[jbg]

Sorry, did I say that? Because went back and read through the replies and I don't see where I said that.

Are you also TimG?

[cybercoma]

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

Sorry, August. You're entirely wrong. The effects of any CO₂ in the atmosphere is a well established fact. There is absolutely no dispute that it is a greenhouse gas. So, it's quite obvious what happens when our activities increase the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. None of this is the least bit controversial. Edited November 23, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

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

There are. But it's a red-herring.

[TimG]

But the general public, hearing of an email 'leak' was given the impression by the MSM that this was a candid admission.

Which was a true impressopm. No consensus scientist ever made such a candid admission in a forum broadly accessible to the public. If fact, many would say exactly the opposite in the media.

I will agree that some of the emails have been misinterpreted by some (hide the decline is about proxies - not the temperature record). But your willingness to accept the consensus whitewash on this issue is frustrating.

[Michael Hardner]

Which was a true impressopm. No consensus scientist ever made such a candid admission in a forum broadly accessible to the public. If fact, many would say exactly the opposite in the media.

Why wouldn't the MSM pick up on such a thing though ? The fault is with the MSM striving for a 'story' which is compelling and gets attention. Do we even know how these scientists release information to the press, and whether it gets picked up ?

I will concur, though, that the scientists have a duty to understand how information is disseminated, including the yellow press and the yellow cable channels, and that they need to play the game better.

Or... even better would be for people to get their information from these boards rather than the MSM. One learns a lot from these dialogues.

I will agree that some of the emails have been misinterpreted by some (hide the decline is about proxies - not the temperature record). But your willingness to accept the consensus whitewash on this issue is frustrating.

As is your inclination to believe critics of marginal credulity, but we continue...

[TimG]

You aren't aware of the science - I suggest you engage Waldo if you want to know some facts. He's ornery, rude and dismissive but he knows his stuff.

Waldo is propodandist. He knows enough to cut and paste stuff from relevant sources but he is either an idiot who does not understand the material he posts or a deliberate liar that seeks to confuse less sophicated readers with scientific babble that sounds good but is scientific nonsense.

You, yourself, have admitted you don't understand the discussions you still recommend him. I think that shows that your opinions are based on preconceived ideology rather than thought.

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Why wouldn't the MSM pick up on such a thing though ? The fault is with the MSM striving for a 'story' which is compelling and gets attention.

Because it was not the 'narrative' which is being pushed by the greens and the IPCC. No matter how you spin this the Trembereth admission was news because it contradicted the IPCC/green narrative.

[Michael Hardner]

You, yourself, have admitted you don't understand the discussions you still recommend him. I think that shows that your opinions are based on preconceived idiology rather than thought.

I recommend both of you based on your subject knowledge.

The issue that I failed to get to the bottom to is still unresolved in my mind.

[Michael Hardner]

Because it was not the 'narrative' which is being pushed by the greens and the IPCC. No matter how you spin this the Trembereth admission was news because it contradicted the IPCC/green narrative.

FOX News doesn't toe the line, so why didn't they report it ?

[TimG]

FOX News doesn't toe the line, so why didn't they report it ?

They did. Many times.

But that still makes it news because FOX is dismissed as a partisan news source by many.

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

I recommend both of you based on your subject knowledge.

The issue that I failed to get to the bottom to is still unresolved in my mind.

Ok. Thx. That was not clear in your initial post.

[Michael Hardner]

They did. Many times.

But that still makes it news because FOX is dismissed as a partisan news source by many.

So if they reported the initial admission that warming wasn't happening, why was the admission in a private email news at all ?

[TimG]

So if they reported the initial admission that warming wasn't happening, why was the admission in a private email news at all?

Because on FOX news the MSM admitting that FOX news was right all along is news in itself.

[TimG]

One of the most interesting themes in the Climategate e-mails are more frank admissions that sceptics are right and that the establishment has been dishonestly dealing with the issues raised.

Dr. Douglas Maraun, a scientist at the Climatic Reasearch Unit at the University of East Anglia wrote to his colleages in an e-mail on October 24, 2007:

How should we deal with flaws inside the climate community? I think, that “our” reaction on the errors found in Mike Mann’s work were not especially honest.

Frankly, the attempts to make this go away by claiming it is 'out of context' are pretty pathetic. There is real disconnect between what scientists say to themselves and what the public message is. This public has right to know this disconnect exists and the fact that such a disconnect illustrates why climate science is not a particularly trustworthy field of science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/23/quote-of-the-week-climategate-2-0-reaction-to-manns-errors-not-honest/

So Michael: A card carrying climate science admits privately that Mann's work has errors. Are you still going to insist that the 'jury is out' and there 'is a debate'?

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Because on FOX news the MSM admitting that FOX news was right all along is news in itself.

It wasn't framed that way. I didn't see any report where it was explained that these statements had been made before, and that they were simply being restated in the emails.

[Michael Hardner]

So Michael: A card carrying climate science admits privately that Mann's work has errors. Are you still going to insist that the 'jury is out' and there 'is a debate'?

Clearly there is a debate, as the scientists themselves are debating. And, yes, the papers have errors and these are supposed to be discussed during peer review.

I will await the response so I can get both parts of the story. Climategate 1 turned out to be a big nothing, so I'm glad I waited to hear the response for that non-scandal.

[TimG]

Clearly there is a debate, as the scientists themselves are debating. And, yes, the papers have errors and these are supposed to be discussed during peer review.

Give me break. You are completely evading the issue. The statement in the email is '“our” reaction' ... 'was not especially honest.'. How can you possible claim that means 'business as usual' unless desception and dishonesty is what you think is 'business as usual'.

Climategate 1 turned out to be a big nothing, so I'm glad I waited to hear the response for that non-scandal.

It was not nothing. It was huge. It exposed influential climate scientists as the mewling zealots they are. The only people who think is nothing are people who plug their ears and go running around saying 'la la la - I can't hear you'.

Frankly, I am tired of alarmist buffons you create strawman that have nothing to do with the argument and they say - 'look we destroyed that irrelevant strawman so we can ignore everything you say'. That is exactly what you are doing when you say 'climategate 1 was nothing'. You are doing nothing but accepting the alarmist strawmen as fact instead of looking at the issues and making your opinion.

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Give me break. You are completely evading the issue. The statement in the email is '“our” reaction' ... 'was not especially honest.'. How can you possible claim that means 'business as usual' unless desception and dishonesty is what you think is 'business as usual'.

It was not nothing. It was huge. It exposed influential climate scientists as the mewling zealots they are. The only people who think is nothing are people who plug their ears and go running around saying 'la la la - I can't hear you'.

Why is "our" in quotes? He seems to be criticizing someone else here.

It was nothing ... the most quoted revelations were out of context and therefore misrepresented to the public. The response wasn't adequately publicized. I think the biggest revelation for you wasn't the same as for the general public.