Climategate Email Leak 2.0

[TimG]

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

Fortunately they are now thanks to determined opposition. But back in 2007/2008 it looked like some pretty insane policies were going to get adopted. That said, it is still necessary to remind people that this is a debate about policy - not science. Because many people on the eco-activist side of the fence still feel that 'climate science' is a trump card that requires the suspension of rational thought when it comes to policy.

[dre]

Fortunately they are now thanks to determined opposition. But back in 2007/2008 it looked like some pretty insane policies were going to get adopted. That said, it is still necessary to remind people that this is a debate about policy - not science. Because many people on the eco-activist side of the fence still feel that 'climate science' is a trump card that requires the suspension of rational thought when it comes to policy.

It has nothing to do with determined opposition and everything to do with the ECONOMY being the number one concern of voters, and the environment being somewhere between number 3 and number 5 on the list. Even going back as far as Kyoto governments put the economy before the environment and NONE of them were willing to compromise economic concerns to meet their Kyoto targets.

I know youre desperate to blow your own horn, but the reality is governments always have and always will put the economy first. And like I said theres a whole pile of different policy objectives in play. Environmental concerns are a important factor but just one thing being considered.

Edited November 24, 2011 by dre

[TimG]

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

Perhaps. I find that people on the right tend to be more honest about admitting their ideology drives their policy preferences.

[TimG]

It has nothing to do with determined opposition and everything to do with the ECONOMY being the number one concern of voters.

BS. Politicians needs political cover to back off from the ridiculous promises they were being pushed into. Climategate and other revelations of IPCC incompentence gave them that cover. They may have found other excuses but those are the ones that were available.

BTW - Kyoto was signed and the only reason it did not bankrupt the country is because we had a government with enough guts to tell the enviros to go pound salt. Japan did not not have so much luck and has pissed billions on fraudulent credits to meet its "voluntary commitments" despite its moribund economy. The fact is governments will do stupid things that undermine the country in order to pander to voters and one can never assume that it 'will all work out'.

Edited November 24, 2011 by TimG

[jbg]

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'.

If the "scientists" were merely "mewling zealots" I would consider them to be misguided fools. It is worse. They are fraudsters.

It's very simple from their point of view. If there is no man-made climate problem there would be no funding for their dubious "research". These scientists are earning a good living compiling the same sort of data I could be searching sites such as www.wunderground.com or hiring tree-ring experts to reconstruct data from before good records were kept. It is in the interest of their commercial survival to keep a panic going. If there wasn't a "problem" they could join the ranks of "occupiers" defacating on our sidewalks. And "peer review" perpetuates this finding of a problem. Why is it Bjorn Lomborg's attempt to debate Al Gore was first accepted and then withdrawn?

It's that simple.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Perhaps. I find that people on the right tend to be more honest about admitting their ideology drives their policy preferences.

If you mean, more beligerent and willfully ignorant then I agree .

But, sometimes... they actually sit down to think and study information... and..

Climate Change 'skeptic' partly funded by Koch brothers concludes world is warming.

[TimG]

If you mean, more beligerent and willfully ignorant then I agree

You are a perfect illustration of the problem. You have you head so far up your nether regions you can't comprehend that reasonable people can calmly assess the information available and come to the conclusion that CO2 mitigation policies are are complete waste of time and money.

BTW - No one is impressed by your ability to slaughter strawmen. If you want to make an argument why don't you start by figuring out what sceptics are actually saying instead of repeating the spin fed to by the media and eco-activists.

Edited November 24, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

If the "scientists" were merely "mewling zealots" I would consider them to be misguided fools. It is worse. They are fraudsters.

It's very simple from their point of view. If there is no man-made climate problem there would be no funding for their dubious "research". These scientists are earning a good living compiling the same sort of data I could be searching sites such as www.wunderground.com or hiring tree-ring experts to reconstruct data from before good records were kept. It is in the interest of their commercial survival to keep a panic going. If there wasn't a "problem" they could join the ranks of "occupiers" defacating on our sidewalks. And "peer review" perpetuates this finding of a problem. Why is it Bjorn Lomborg's attempt to debate Al Gore was first accepted and then withdrawn?

It's that simple.

You're right, that does sound ridiculous. The fact that they earn a living from publishing science based on fact, and there are accredited and amateur skeptics watching them all the way makes the world-wide conspiracy not just ridiculous but impossible.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

It wasn't for the 'public' it was for publication in a scientific journal. They made statements in scientific journals, as we discussed on this thread, and you yourself stated that that wasn't a public forum - which was your reason why "it's a travesty..." was worthy of being highlighted by the MSM.

[jbg]

You're right, that does sound ridiculous. The fact that they earn a living from publishing science based on fact, and there are accredited and amateur skeptics watching them all the way makes the world-wide conspiracy not just ridiculous but impossible.

I sure hope that the scientists aren't leveraging their vested interest in funding into tilted findings.

[Michael Hardner]

I sure hope that the scientists aren't leveraging their vested interest in funding into tilted findings.

Who knows what they're investing their academic riches in ? Maybe oil stocks...

[TimG]

It wasn't for the 'public' it was for publication in a scientific journal. They made statements in scientific journals...

The 'hide the decline' was for a WMO document for public consumption where burying something in the text is the same as concealing it because average people will not read the text or understand the implications. The 'travesty' statement was a different quote which was about material published in a journal but not general knowledge. The 'trick' comes from the same email as hide the decline and I am saying the trick *combined* with 'hide the decline' clearly implies intent to deceive. Edited November 24, 2011 by TimG

[lukin]

The alarmists know that they are taking a major hit with their garbage theories. The problem is that there are still too many sheep out there who fall for the BS propagated by the alarmists. Some of you need to become informed. Alarmists don't want to save the world, they only want your cash. They want to brainwash the youth, which is what Al Gore did in Winnipeg yesterday.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

Edited November 24, 2011 by lukin

[Michael Hardner]

There is already a thread called "Climategate Email Link 2.0" - please post in that thread.

[Michael Hardner]

The 'hide the decline' was for a WMO document for public consumption where burying something in the text is the same as concealing it because average people will not read the text or understand the implications. The 'travesty' statement was a different quote which was about material published in a journal but not general knowledge. The 'trick' comes from the same email as hide the decline and I am saying the trick *combined* with 'hide the decline' clearly implies intent to deceive.

But you have stated that the scientists themselves believe what they write, so why does it matter if it's for public consumption or not ? And presumably the method they were discussing would find itself into a publication at some point, with the methods explained.

So I'm still confused as to what Climategate 1.0 was supposed to show.

[lukin]

There is already a thread called "Climategate Email Link 2.0" - please post in that thread.

Where?

[Michael Hardner]

Here

[TimG]

But you have stated that the scientists themselves believe what they write, so why does it matter if it's for public consumption or not?

You fail to recognize the dynamic in this debate where people who question the consensus are attacked and villified by alarmists of all stripes - including scientists on sites like Real Climate. To learn that scientists actually agree with sceptics on some key points among themselves is news.

What climategate 1 and 2 show is scientists are knowingly keeping important facts from the media debate because they want to create the illustion that sceptics never right. These tactics are dishonest and the public shold be concerned just like they should be concerned if it revealled that drug companies failed to mention adverse drug studies in their marketing literature (i.e. it may not mean that the drug is unsafe but keeping that information quiet represents a deceptive pratice).

[Michael Hardner]

What climategate 1 and 2 show is scientists are knowingly keeping important facts from the media debate because they want to create the illustion that sceptics never right. These tactics are dishonest and the public shold be concerned just like they should be concerned if it revealled that drug companies failed to mention adverse drug studies in their marketing literature (i.e. it may not mean that the drug is unsafe but keeping that information quiet represents a deceptive pratice).

Scientists have little control over the 'media debate'. You are saying that the scientists are responsible for the fact that some of their comments make it into the MSM and that some don't. If they were, then we would see equal coverage for their responses to things like Climategate.

In any case, that's not what was sold to the public when Climategate broke. It was clearly put forward that private emails showed that they were hiding facts, when in fact these facts were being published. The statements that were leaked were selected so as to leave the impression of a conspiracy.

I have stated before that scientists have mishandled the PR side of what they do, and they continue to either stumble or to ignore the MSM, although they continue to be slandered and harassed, accused of pursuing their careers for money only, etc.

[Guest Manny]

Oh, Climategate. Ok, I get it now...

[TimG]

Scientists have little control over the 'media debate'. You are saying that the scientists are responsible for the fact that some of their comments make it into the MSM and that some don't.

I am saying that mismatch between the media debate and what scientists are saying is news in itself. The emails reflect badly on the scientists becasue they spend so much time trying to manipulate the media debate (via sites like Real Climate) when it comes to promoting the IPCC agenda but are completely silent if that meant acknowledging sceptics are right on some point.

I have stated before that scientists have mishandled the PR side of what they do, and they continue to either stumble or to ignore the MSM, although they continue to be slandered and harassed, accused of pursuing their careers for money only, etc.

Some (but not all) climate scientists are ethically challenged zealots that deserve the harassment they get and more. Edited November 24, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I am saying that mismatch between the media debate and what scientists are saying is news in itself. The emails reflect badly on the scientists becasue they spend so much time trying to manipulate the media debate (via sites like Real Climate) when it comes to promoting the IPCC agenda but are completely silent if that meant acknowledging sceptics are right on some point.

There were two excerpts that were quoted most often when the story broke: The "travesty" quote and the "hide the decline" quote.

Again, what you got from climategate is that there's a mismatch between what they say privately and the media debate. My response is that the media never has covered the science as much as the political fight that is behind the real debate and that most people didn't get the same message from this that you did.

Some (but not all) climate scientists are ethically challenged zealots that deserve the harassment they get and more.

I'm pretty sure that they have been changed by the allegations and the public harassment, and this is what I see in some of the email exchanges.

[TimG]

I'm pretty sure that they have been changed by the allegations and the public harassment, and this is what I see in some of the email exchanges.

No. The unethical behavior came first. If they had been upfront with their data and acknowledged uncertainty there would have been no need for people to question their claims.

[Michael Hardner]

No. The unethical behavior came first. If they had been upfront with their data and acknowledged uncertainty there would have been no need for people to question their claims.

I haven't seen this claim before. How could you show which came first?

[eyeball]

Some (but not all) climate scientists are ethically challenged zealots that deserve the harassment they get and more.

I think the public has for the most part come to regard scientists, like they were just so many priests, lawyers and politicians. Untrustworthy scum of the Earth in other words.

It shouldn't be to much longer before the economists are finally added to the heap. Maybe that'll be the day when we finally put the torch to the whole sordid pile.