First and foremost — contrary to what you’ve likely read elsewhere in the blogosphere or heard from the few policymakers and pundits actually addressing the issue, it was not the temperature decline the planet has been experiencing since 1998 that Jones and friends conspired to hide. Certainly, the simple fact that the email was sent in November of 1999 should have allayed any such confusion.
In fact, the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists – those determined by proxy reconstructions. As this scandal has attracted new readers to the subject, I ask climate savvy readers to indulge me while I briefly explain climate proxies, as they are an essential ingredient of this contemptible conspiracy.
Yea, and when ALL the glaciers and snow caps in the world dissappear every summer, global warming will still be denied while we focus on the fact that Al Gore travels by jet and lives in a big house.
If we have any food to eat given the ocean phytoplankton collapse due to ocean acidification that is. But who eats fish when soylent green tastes so good?
The Deniers are funded by big oil.
For Your denial.
Um hum. Little Ice Age was caused by who? Oh. Nobody? Oh. I see. Well then, Medieval Warming Period was caused by who? Nobody? Oh. Sorry.
Al Gore, you are wanted at the white courtesy telephone. Bobbo, you will kindly contribute your life savings to him, if you insist. The rest of you are excused.
I agree that pollution is bad. I don’t agree that I need to pay for past abuses by corporations. WE ALL need to clean it up.
Not start a new economy based solely on fraudulent findings. But, as with all other important-to-me decisions…it doesn’t matter what i think..just that I pay.
Yep. Its all just a liberal tax scam. Get back to polluting, people. Your pollution has NO effect on climate. None at all. Its all imaginary.
/sarcasm
Just because unscrupulous motherfuckers are taking advantage of the climate change fear industry doesn’t mean man made climate change aint happening.
@reganvenlter
And the global warming religious zealots are funded but the govt who wish to tax and control our energy and lives, so what is your point ?
I vote with #3. The data has been cooked. Our ability to tell what if anything the connection is between recent CO2 levels and temps is pretty much non existent.
Many glaciers are now growing. You might also want to read this.
So let me get this straight. Only big oil lies. Scientists and politicians, who stand to gain money and increased control on people never lie and never would manipulate data to help them make a case for their own self interest. Some of you global warming now Climate change believers are some of the most gullible morons around. You have been played and you know you have been played yet your arrogance won’t allow you to admit what suckers you are.
You are willing to hand over your freedom so that bureaucrats can run your life. Yuu are pathetic. Hopefully all of this will come to an end in 2010.
More climate data manipulation
OK — first off “American Thinker” is yet another right-wing website (with a name like that it kinda has to be, eh?) so this is another biased attack. I read it and wasn’t impressed. Hyping it up as some kind of earthshaking scientific fraud is way overblown and just part of the ongoing effort to discredit science. When the truth becomes obvious 25 years down the road, I want these naysayers hunted down and publicly pilloried for retarding attempts to prevent disaster.
As for the “but the glaciers are growing!” nonsense above, it is not news that *some* glaciers *are* growing — the effects of climate change do change weather patterns and it is not surprising that putting more snowfall in an area that used to be cold but drier results in growing glaciers. *Most* glaciers are shrinking, mostly due to global warming. Finding one doing the opposite doesn’t change that. C’mon folks, use your brains just a little here……
So, what were the peasants, knights and lords driving, a Range Rover, maybe a Hummer, to cause the Medieval Warming Period? Better yet what were they doing to cause the Little Ice Age. And what were our relatives doing 12,000 years ago to melt all that ice over Canada and the Great Lakes? Goddamn selfish bastards.
Bobbo, I’m surprised at you. Read the article. The data was manipulated and hidden to make it appear as if there was a hockey stick graph, when in FACT there wasn’t.
The chart I posted several times last week was ignored by pro-anthropological forcing supporters on this thread… except by MScott who accused me of drawing it myself, LOL. It shows we are heading into an ice age, and is a chart that was used by IPCC scientists when it suited them because it also showed the relationship between CO2 and climate change. Unfortunately, if you look closely you can see, as many dissenting scientists have seen, that the spike in CO2 is having little effect on the ultimate direction of temperatures.
So why isn’t that chart used any more? I was skeptical of the ability of such an institution as the IPCC to keep it honest… and valuing their reputation over transparency and honesty. I was also skeptical of thousands of scientists whose likelihood depends on the continuation of funding aimed squarely at proving anthropological forcing. I’ve read over 100 of the original 1100 or so emails, and it is painfully obvious that money is the main topic, and being true to IPCC objectives… proving anthropological forcing… a close second.
I also read emails from a lead professor, chewing out another researcher for attempting to manipulate other scientists.
So not everyone is rotten of course, but the overall system has been compromised by greed and ass-kissing…. which is not surprising since climate scientists are also human.
Right #10. Because it comes from a site you disagree with politically, it is there for irrelevant. My dog has more common sense than you.
Anyone who adopts the “Climate Change” term, in lieu of “Global Warming”, has no credibility. It is either a Global Warming, or a Global Scamming.
Dr Wally, what is the F’ing solution then? What are you thinking we will do in then next 25 years to reduce atmospheric carbon (that is, carbon already in the air)? Nothing can be done! What can be done to get the rate of carbon emission done to the levels of the year 1800 (the point where it shoots up on the graph)? Nothing can be done, short of a drastic reduction in population back to the levels prior to 1800!
Carbon believers want to cry over their holy “science”, but then do nothing in their own lives to change the situation. Much like religious folks who go to church to be told they are sinners, but then go home to drink and cuss and screwoff.
Hey #2 Looks like Big oil funds the alarmists too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/hansen-the-fraudulence-of-the-copenhagen-approach-must-be-exposed/
Re: The warden, It’s not that we have been played by the scientists exactly. I don’t think for a moment that intelligent hard working climate scientists as a whole are methodically trying to pull the wool over our eyes.The darker side of human nature has played a big role here
Once you have the prestige of an institution like the IPCC, many prominent scientists stating at the beginning that we are ‘probably’ causing global warming (because then temperatures were rising), and tons of money… more than any of them ever imagined would ever be available for climate research of all things… was suddenly available to anyone who could formulate a theory about anything climate-wise, cracks in moral responsibility, survival instincts among others, kick in.
We were all made very clear as to what the IPCC suspicion (read ‘objective’) was at the beginning, and what YOUR scientific objective and findings should be if you were to continue receiving research money (very clear in the emails). But the average scientists involved didn’t see anything wrong with this. They would do their best and faithfully disseminate their findings, smoothing curves and other allowable ‘tricks’ until it suited their objective. You be surprised at how many emails talked about data and curve smoothing until certain artifacts disappeared or became inconsequential. That kind of data made it into final peer reviewed papers and was referenced over and over…. further skewing other peer reviews… using the “smoothed” data that revealed the same results. Of course it did!!
…and the the original (more complete) data has apparently gone missing.
An Inconvenient Truth (a mixture of convenient lies and some truth for good measure) kick started a fervor. I suspect the Nobel prize to be tainted now as well. Were there palms greased? Quite disgusting really.
Reparations for climate damage, paid to the third world, by the first world, will only empower the third world to buy more stuff, use more energy, and have more children-causing a net increase in global carbon emmission rate.
# 6 PMitchell said,
on December 6th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@reganvenlter
And the global warming religious zealots are funded but the govt who wish to tax and control our energy and lives, so what is your point ?
The point is that the Oil industry is paying the think-tanks who put findings in front of the media to drive public opinion to try to change how Government regulates business.
It would be wonderful to live in a Libertarian Utopia
but it can never happen in a World where People are not socially responsible and the global business model is “Dog eat dog and the Devil take the hindmost”.
Just in case the scientific community happens to be right and the CEO’s who don’t want to pay for anything
are wrong.
Get a house with a keel and a hull and a sail and a deck gun,preferably loaded with grape-shot.
Have a nice day.
Reganvelter, CEOs won’t pay for this issue, the consumer is always passed the bill! Companies always pass thier costs on to consumers, that’s business 101. Most companies, other than Intel Corp., have thin margins, and HAVE to pass any cost increases on to consumers – or go out of business.
CEOs don’t take pay cuts, if the last 10 years (or 100) are any indication.
1. Humans pollute too much.
2. Mother nature and our precious Sun have far more influence on Earth’s changing climate than pollution and it’s arrogant to think that we, as humans, have any significant influence on that change.
3. Yes, the climate is probably changing. Why wouldn’t it? It always has been. And yes, it may not be pretty in the short (0-100 yr.) term.
4 See #1 … read it 5 times and proceed to #2.
Look, if it takes a scientifically ambiguous “global warming” / “climate change” scare to get humans to clean up their act, I’m all for it.
Hydroelectric, wind, solar & wave power are the only sustainable energy sources.
Geothermal has a long run ahead of it but in the end, it’ll go cold.
Anything we dig/pump out of the ground is finite.
Growing fuel at the expense of food, is folly.
Some folks are getting rich by affecting change in public perception in a capitalistic society (globally for the most part)… what else is to be expected?
Our great grandchildren will say “… gas powered cars? What were they thinking?”
On a general note, I really enjoy the blog and the “regulars” that make it what it is. I don’t miss Alfred1 that much though.
Peace,
/T.
Here is an interesting report that won’t get airtime in the U.S.
Screw this pointless argument. The US (well the whole world) is cruising towards an oil shortage. Worldwide demand is going up while supply has leveled and now dropping. Oil will be $200/barrel in the next 2-3 years so get over it.
The west needs to become efficient users of energy because of basic supply and demand. Either get in front of it now and lead, or be in the same position we are now – reliant on the next generation of foreign energy supplies and technology.
Father said:
“CEOs won’t pay for this issue, the consumer is always passed the bill! Companies always pass thier costs on to consumers, that’s business 101.”
True!
Worse,The Oil companies pay the lowest of tax rates but then they are subsidized at tax payer expense.
They hire lobbyists and PAC’s to influence Our Government to work in Their favor and not for You or for Me.
Then They refuse to take responsibility for Their Own actions and blame everything on the Government that They bought and We pay for.
Seems that welfare is fashionable for the elite but the other kind of welfare,for the needy,keeps Limbaugh and Beck hooked on dope so that They may sleep at night.
#22, qb, I agree. Instead of wasting billions of dollars on a the red herring of anthropomorphic forced climate change, lets change the MO and get all nations and scientists together sharing ideas and information, writing peer reviewed (cough) papers… for the sole purpose of utilizing the forces of nature to efficiently and abundantly fuel our energy needs.
That’s where the REAL problem is, and we are wasting time, money and resources over something we will ultimately have no control over. The climate will do what it was going to do, regardless.
That’s what really pisses me off about this debacle.
here’s some more info about the climate deniers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY&feature=player_embedded
If all people would quit expelling so much CO2
and Methane gas we wouldn’t have this problem.
#22: “The US (well the whole world) is cruising towards an oil shortage.”
My friends who discover new oil fields for big oil companies disagree with this. We’ve still got quite a bit left, and lots of untapped reserves, according to them.
#20 “Mother nature and our precious Sun have far more influence on Earth’s changing climate than pollution”
Too bad 99.1% of all scientist don’t agree with that. But who CARES. You have faith and magic and “belief”…that’s better than science. Sure you need/use science to create geo-synchronous orbiting satellites which broadcast digital time division multiplexed microwave signals to ground repeaters off to LCD televisions powered by nuclear power plants…all to put on some televangelist jackass who tells me the creator of a trillion galaxies doesn’t want me to eat bacon.
We can kill rivers, make lakes dead and lifeless. We can EASILY if we wanted create a runaway greenhouse effect. We can’t “kill” the planet, it will recover in 100,000 years, 100 million years a 2.36 billion years…but we won’t be here to see it because the anti-science religious nuts will always deny reality (because THAT gets THEM more money and power).
If anyone has faked any science data in a peer reviewed journal, it will come out. Calm the F**K down you lunatics. Just like the folk who claimed to have cold fusion, in science (unlike fake made up superstitions and religions) you have to EVENTUALLY prove your argument with facts and ANYONE can use facts to tear DOWN your argument.
lol@28 encryption had nothing to do with it, most likely the emails were pulled off by the researchers themselves and the files copied at some point or backed up on a network system.
But I don’t WANT ANY scientist to use 256 bit encryption for ANY of their correspondence. And you shouldn’t either. Any truly scientific work should be accessible to all, and be able to be peer reviewed with the original data and methods used.
Anytime I see words of “dropped data points” or “filtering”, I immediately start to question the work. Every single data point in a series should be explained, or there should be a list of those “problem” data points with a continuation of research to see if they are valid.
True scientists do NOT EVER change the raw data. This is the part I question — I think we have some scientists who think it is ok to modify data without explanation when it suits the end results or doesn’t impact them.
At the moment, there are major holes in both sides arguments about human-based climate change — largely because we don’t have a long enough data set to be able to clearly state the results of a path taken.
There also have not been (at least I’ve not heard of any) experiments to determine the actual impact of co2 in particular areas over a period of time, with comparisons of lowering and increasing the measures in the local atmosphere. This is largely because the experiments would be so expensive that they probably would never be completed (not to mention the ethics involved). And so, scientists try to model the climate and show these impacts — without having a way to actually test their theories in reality.
The modelling results are largely what I think we are seeing. Predictive models of real world results largely fail, primarily because there are too many variables involved to solve what is a combination of macro and micro effects.
In any case, at this point I do expect the scientific community to validate the research done and check that all of the raw data has been accounted for in their results.
I the find the debate between pro-climate change and anti-climate change pretty much the same fighting as I see in theists and atheists.
Both sides think they are so smegging sure, but really neither knows for sure one way or the other.
Until we get some moderates I have no desire to even deal with either side of the fence.
Cursor_