Climategate Email Leak 2.0

[TimG]

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

The context is obvious - he is refering to the general community which he is a part of. The quote indicate that it is an informal grouping rather than an 'official response'.

It was nothing ... the most quoted revelations were out of context and therefore misrepresented to the public.

Climategate 1 meant that people no longer see climate scientists as beyond reproach. It has made pure 'arguments from authority' impossible now. That is good.

The reality is when you say 'out of context' what you really mean is the political masters have not been able to construct the appropriate 'spin' that minimizes the damage. It is not about ensuring that people understand - it is about getting people to believe that falsehoods are true.

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The context is obvious - he is refering to the general community which he is a part of. The quote indicate that it is an informal grouping rather than an 'official response'.

It's not obvious to me.

Climategate 1 meant that people no longer see climate scientists as beyond reproach. It has made pure 'arguments from authority' impossible now. That is good.

'Argument from authority' doesn't apply here. This is a subject in which authority means knowledge, and the opinion of the common person should derive from a discussion among equals not from people interpreting nefarious intentions from the MSM.

The reality is when you say 'out of context' what you really mean is the political masters have not been able to construct the appropriate 'spin' that minimizes the damage. It is not about ensuring that people understand - it is about getting people to believe that falsehoods are true.

There should be no 'spin'... there should be a discussion of facts. The MSM put 'spin' on it when they released the leaked emails in the first place. Which falsehoods are you referring to ? Be specific.

[SF/PF]

Climategate 1 meant that people no longer see climate scientists as beyond reproach. It has made pure 'arguments from authority' impossible now. That is good.

Which is, of course, exactly what the media manufactured it to do. The critics of AGW were not able to compete on science alone, but found a powerful ally in the media who take great pains to ensure that both sides of every story get equal play, regardless of merit.

The AGW debate is almost exactly analogous to the "Teach the Controversy" movement that seeks to put Creationism/ID/whatever-they-call-it-since-the-lastest-court-ruling on equal footing with the biological theory of evolution. There is no scientific controversy. The controversy is purely political.

Edited November 23, 2011 by SF/PF

[TimG]

The critics of AGW were not able to compete on science alone

No that is spin that eco-activists would like people to believe. As the climategate emails reveal there is much more debate within the scientific community but this debate is supressed in order to support the IPCC message/fraud.

The AGW debate is almost exactly analogous to the "Teach the Controversy" movement

More pathetic spin. Even if the IPCC was 100% correct on the science that does not automatically mean that CO2 mitigation is the best way forward. The debate about science only happens because eco-activists thought they could hi-jack the scientific institutions in order to impose a bunch of socialist policies on an befuddled public. This left opponents of the policies no choice but to attack scientists.

If you don't like that stop pretending that science dictates policy. It does not. Economics often makes scientifically desirable policies impossible. If you want to debate the economics then debate the economics.

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Which falsehoods are you referring to?

That 'hiding the decline' refers to a 'clever trick'. Nothing but pathetic spin doctoring.

[dre]

No that is spin that eco-activists would like people to believe. As the climategate emails reveal there is much more debate within the scientific community but this debate is supressed in order to support the IPCC message/fraud.

More pathetic spin. Even if the IPCC was 100% correct on the science that does not automatically mean that CO2 mitigation is the best way forward. The debate about science only happens because eco-activists thought they could hi-jack the scientific institutions in order to impose a bunch of socialist policies on an befuddled public. This left opponents of the policies no choice but to attack scientists.

If you don't like that stop pretending that science dictates policy. It does not. Economics often makes scientifically desirable policies impossible. If you want to debate the economics then debate the economics.

If you don't like that stop pretending that science dictates policy. It does not. Economics often makes scientifically desirable policies impossible.

Right. And thats why in terms of real public policy governments have only done a fraction of what many people were recommending. Scientists arent making policy, they just play a small part.

[TimG]

Right. And thats why in terms of real public policy governments have only done a fraction of what many people were recommending. Scientists arent making policy, they just play a small part.

The issue are people who are advocates of one side of the policy debate trying to use the authority of scientists to shout down critics of their policies.

[SF/PF]

No that is spin that eco-activists would like people to believe. As the climategate emails reveal there is much more debate within the scientific community but this debate is supressed in order to support the IPCC message/fraud.

There is a lot of debate in EVERY field of science. Thats one of the things that make science so successful. Even given the immense amount of debate within the climate field (as in every other field), there are still ideas that are rightly considered to be outside of legitimate debate. We have an alternate word for this sort of thing: quackery.

More pathetic spin. Even if the IPCC was 100% correct on the science that does not automatically mean that CO2 mitigation is the best way forward. The debate about science only happens because eco-activists thought they could hi-jack the scientific institutions in order to impose a bunch of socialist policies on an befuddled public. This left opponents of the policies no choice but to attack scientists.

So let me get this straight. Opponents are attacking the scientists (and to a lesser degree, the science) because they don't like the policies?

If you don't like that stop prentending that science dictates policy. It does not. Economics often makes scientifically desirable policies impossible. If you want to debate the economics then debate the economics.

Wait.. what?!

[dre]

The issue are people who are advocates of one side of the policy debate trying to use the authority of scientists to shout down critics of their policies.

Nothing to see here. Both sides are doing that... looking for support for their ideas from anyone available that has a couple letters next to his name.

Policy makers will have to wade through it all, and decide what they want to do, and what they can afford to do. And they will also have to balance a whole bunch of different competing concerns and policy objectives.

When all is said and done, there will be a hell of a lot more said than done.

Edited November 23, 2011 by dre

[TimG]

There is a lot of debate in EVERY field of science. Thats one of the things that make science so successful.

Yet in climate science we are told 'there is no debate'. Pure nonsense as you acknowledge.

So let me get this straight. Opponents are attacking the scientists (and to a lesser degree, the science) because they don't like the policies?

What I am saying is you have two sides in a policy debate. One side says 'you have to adopt my policies because that is what the science says and if you reject the science you are science denier'. The other responds by raising questions about the science.

It takes two to tango and in this discussion you must never forget that it is alarmists who dragged scientists into a policy debate in the first place.

[SF/PF]

Yet in climate science we are told 'there is no debate'. Pure nonsense as you acknowledge.

Yes, and "there is no debate" in the Evolution/ID issue either. Do you take this to mean that there is no debate in modern evolutionary biology?

What I am saying is you have two sides in a policy debate. One side says 'you have to adopt my policies because that is what the science says and if you reject the science you are science denier'. The other responds by raising questions about the science.

Except they don't raise questions about the science. They raise questions about the scientists. Subtle but important difference.

[TimG]

Do you take this to mean that there is no debate in modern evolutionary biology?

A strawman. What you are doing bundling a large number of questions under the label 'climate science' and claiming that none of it is uncertain. Break the issues out and I will tell if there is a legimate debate or not. For example: CO2 is a GHG - no debate. 2 degC warming is a the maximum 'acceptable' rise - a political statement that has little connection to science. Every scientific claim has a different uncertainty associated with it. You cannot make blanket claims about climate science.

Except they don't raise questions about the science. They raise questions about the scientists. Subtle but important difference.

So? Why is that any difference than eco-activists that label scientists who question the consensus as stooges of big oil?

Both sides are guilty of the same things here. It is political battle and there are few boundaries.

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

That 'hiding the decline' refers to a 'clever trick'. Nothing but pathetic spin doctoring.

Hiding the decline of the proxies (again, not what the public thought it was about) and the use of the word 'trick' implied as a deceptive practice when it is frequently used to describe an innovative method or shortcut... that was another big nothing.

[TimG]

when it is frequently used to describe an innovative method or shortcut.

No it is not. That is a "big lie" spread by alarmists so much now that many people actually believe it to be true. Before climategate no one would have ever said the 'hide the decline' could mean an innovative method or shortcut. If a sceptic had been caught using the same words alarmists would have been screaming fraud.

You really need to recogonize when you are being manipulated by people who you are inclined to agree with. Just because you agree with them that does not mean everything they say is true.

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

No it is not. That is a "big lie" spread by alarmists so much now that many people actually believe it to be true. Before climategate no one would have ever said the 'hide the decline' could mean an innovative method or shortcut. If a sceptic had been caught using the same words alarmists would have been screaming fraud.

No - 'clever trick' is an innovative method or shortcut. They were hiding the decline in proxies.

[SF/PF]

A strawman. What you are doing bundling a large number of questions under the label 'climate science' and claiming that none of it is uncertain. Break the issues out and I will tell if there is a legimate debate or not.

Quite right. There is a lot of debate on the specifics of evolutionary biology, just as there is a lot of debate on the specifics of climite science. I wrote exactly that previously. But there is also an awful lot of debate on both of these subjects that has no place in scientific dialogue.

There is no debate on the fact that evolutionary theory is true. Just as there is no debate that AGW is true.

2 degC warming is a the maximum 'acceptable' rise - a political statement that has little connection to science. Every scientific claim has uncertainty associated with it.

No, its a statement that is either true or false on scientific grounds. There is nothing inherently political about the statement. You may disagree with the statement. You may dislike some of the consequences if the statement is true. But to suggest that it is a political statement is nonsense.

So? Why is that any difference than eco-activists that label scientists who question the consensus as stooges of big oil?

Both sides are guilty of the same things here. It is political battle and there are few boundaries.

No, this is where we disagree. There are two completely seperate "battles" here. The science debate, and the policy debate. And the only thing that will come of deliberatly blurring those lines is public confusion.

Of course, thats the goal.

[TimG]

They were hiding the decline in proxies.

Perhaps our wires are crossed. I am objecting to the claim that 'hiding the decline' is a normal scientific procedure. It was an attempt to hide adverse results in order to present a 'cleaner' story to public.

[TimG]

No, its a statement that is either true or false on scientific grounds.

It can't be true or false because it is not a scientific claim. It is a value judgement that makes a huge number of assumption about what will happen to ecosystems and how humans will be able to adapt to climate change. If it was a scientific claim it would have been expressed as a probability distribution.

No, this is where we disagree. There are two completely seperate "battles" here. The science debate, and the policy debate. And the only thing that will come of deliberatly blurring those lines is public confusion.

Yes. And alarmists have been deliberately blurring those lines and creating confusion for years with the full support of the media and the IPCC.

I am happy to concede that AGW is a plausible risk worth discussing and to debate policy.

But if you call me a 'science denier' because I don't accept the policies being pushed by alarmists then you are the one bringing scientists into a policy debate.

Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The issue are people who are advocates of one side of the policy debate trying to use the authority of scientists to shout down critics of their policies.

We wouldn't want social policy being based scientific evidence and research now, would we?

[TimG]

We wouldn't want social policy being based scientific evidence and research now, would we?

Science is nothing but one of many inputs into policy making. It does not override economics or values. Edited November 23, 2011 by TimG

[wyly]

Hiding the decline of the proxies (again, not what the public thought it was about) and the use of the word 'trick' implied as a deceptive practice when it is frequently used to describe an innovative method or shortcut... that was another big nothing.

hey let's look at some of the definitions of "trick"...

1

a : a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud b : a mischievous act : prank c : an indiscreet or childish action d : a deceptive, dexterous, or ingenious feat; especially : one designed to puzzle or amuse <a juggler's tricks>

2

a : a habitual peculiarity of behavior or manner <a horse with the trick of shying> b : a characteristic and identifying feature <a trick of speech> c : a delusive appearance especially when caused by art or legerdemain : an optical illusion <a mere trick of the light>

3

a (1) : a quick or artful way of getting a result : knack <the trick is to make it look natural> (2) : an instance of getting a desired result <one small adjustment will do the trick> b : a technical device (as of an art or craft) <the tricks of stage technique>

4

: the cards played in one round of a card game often used as a scoring unit

5

a : a turn of duty at the helm usually lasting for two hours b : shift 4b(1) c : a trip taken as part of one's employment d : a sexual act performed by a prostitute <turning tricks>; also : john 2

6

: an attractive child or woman <a cute little trick>

and there are more definitions out there...

skeptics will take anything out of context as long as it fits their conspiracy motives...

[cybercoma]

Science is nothing but one of many inputs into policy making. It does not override economics or values.

By values, you really mean ideology, right?

[dre]

Science is nothing but one of many inputs into policy making. It does not override economics or values.

Which makes your never ending whining seem kinda odd, because thats exactly whats happening.

The government listens to the scientific community, but really thats just one factor that informs public policy. At the end of the day voters are more concerned about the economy than the environment, so in general an economic perspective trumps anything else. And thats why you see governments doing very little of what the scientific community recommends.

Clearly the factors you are concerned about are being taken into account.

[TimG]

By values, you really mean ideology, right?

If ideology includes stuff like letting a guilty person go free is better than convicting an innocent one.

The fact is everyone has an ideology that guides their choices in the face of uncertainty. I find it quite galling that so many on the left accuse people that they disagree with of being ideological when they are frequently doing exactly the same. I see it as a form of psychological projection.

[dre]

If ideology includes stuff like letting a guilty person go free is better than convicting an innocent one.

The fact is everyone has an ideology that guides their choices in the face of uncertainty. I find it quite galling that so many on the left accuse people that they disagree with of being ideological when they are frequently doing exactly the same. I see it as a form of psychological projection.

THis is standard operating procedure for everyone these days not just "the left".