ClimateGate Debunked

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

ClimateGate Debunked

Postby Ragorn » Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:25 pm

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... -1,00.html

You may go about your manufactured outrage. The scientific community has moved on.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:42 pm

Absolutely ridiculous. Climate gate is far from debunked. There are OUTRAGEOUS problems that need to be addressed.

I'm not going to argue that climate gate proves global warming isn't happening, I'm hesitant to even say it shows that the data is wrong. So if thats what you mean by debunked, I pretty much agree, no science has changed, and scientists en large are still supportive of the belief that man is causing the globe to warm.

However, climate gate is not about the science of climate change imo. This has absolutely exposes some serious issues in science dealing with accountability, transparency and openness. The way these scientists have conduct themselves is reprehensible and completely the opposite of what science demands of them. Their egos, their politics, their profit motives are clearly attempting to impact the scientific process. I don't think that is debatable. 10,000 sympathetic climate scientists siding with climate scientists shouldn't give you any warm fuzzies.

There are serious credibility issues here and additional investigation needs to occur... at this center and at all the centers. One of the most important climate scientists, climate centers in the world just got caught with his pants down. We have an obligation to investigate and determine if the science is and has been manipulated to promote an agenda. It wouldn't be the first time someone passionate about something fudged the truth to prove something.

debunked, not hardly.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:52 am

Are these the same scientists that claimed in 1970 that the Earth was headed towards an ice age?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climat ... utton.html

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
...
In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.
...
While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby avak » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:37 am

The Psychology of Climate Change Denial

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... sychology/

If scientists used the same wildly speculative, unsubstantiated angles that people use to "debunk" anthropogenic climate change they would be laughed out of their jobs. I saw something interesting at the Smithsonian? Seriously? The government got anxious about climate change 30-40 years ago and therefore the current arguments -must- be wrong? Seriously? Exxon funds speculative "reports" pushed by PR firms and that equates to significant doubt in the science?

That linked article about the fiction of climate science is garbage...worse than garbage...it is fearmongering to push -his- agenda. There is not one ounce of supportive science in it. F$ck that.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:46 pm

This is an article about a petition to demonstrate scientific solidarity being circulated by a major pro global warming funder of climate research. Not exactly scandalous, but 2 scientists out of the 1700 that signed claimed they felt pressured to or risk losing funding from the funder. You want to talk about the psychology of deniers? Lets talk about the psychology of people who seem to understand "profit motive" when it comes to insurance companies, but not when it comes to scientists or you could just take Rahm Emanual's word on crisis politics, never waste a good crisis. or saul alinksy, overwhelm the system.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/ ... cientists/

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the "professional integrity" of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fueling skepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.
...
One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.
...
One scientist told The Times of London he felt pressure to sign. "The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming," he said.


Now... I'm not a scientist, but I'm not sure how a highly intelligent scientist can't see problems with A) data being deleted B) dissenting opinions being suppressed by firing people and limiting their access to publishing C) Not sharing data. I mean if you have scientists not working on climate change signing a petition stating support for the climate science findings... what are they signing it on the basis of other than the integrity of the scientific process?
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby Ragorn » Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:06 pm

kiryan wrote:Are these the same scientists that claimed in 1970 that the Earth was headed towards an ice age?

Image
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby avak » Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:30 pm

Kiryan, you seriously linked to a fox article in which ONE scientist makes an unsubstantiated, ambiguous claim of pressure to sign a petition that 1700+ other scientists signed in four days? ONE PERSON?! This is shocking. I am embarrassed. I'll even give you two....but I don't trust fox enough to assume they are referring to two different scientists.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:50 pm

1 scientist is enough to prove it happens. The only question is how many others are going along with climate change due to fears of being ostracized or cut off from funding sources? You want to take a bet on whether there is only 1 or 2 scientist who feels pressured?

Where is that graph from? It makes no sense to me that time and newsweek ran stories about global cooling when the bulk of published articles was suggesting warming.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby Sarvis » Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:57 pm

kiryan wrote:1 scientist is enough to prove it happens.


You should probably look up "unsubstantiated" and "ambiguous" before you claim this guy as proof of anything.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:05 pm

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work.
One scientist told The Times of London he felt pressure to sign.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that this isn't proof that coercion isn't occuring. It may turn out that less than 1% of the signatories feel this way or that their fears are completely unfounded, however, this clearly supports revelations from climate gate that at least some scientists are not making their decisions based solely on the science. It remains to be seen what the scope and severity of the coercion is.

How many times has a whistle blower lead to an investigation that resulted in discovering a huge problem with a company or government agency?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby Sarvis » Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:13 pm

kiryan wrote:One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work.
One scientist told The Times of London he felt pressure to sign.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that this isn't proof that coercion isn't occuring. It may turn out that less than 1% of the signatories feel this way or that their fears are completely unfounded, however, this clearly supports revelations from climate gate that at least some scientists are not making their decisions based solely on the science. It remains to be seen what the scope and severity of the coercion is.

How many times has a whistle blower lead to an investigation that resulted in discovering a huge problem with a company or government agency?



At least look up unsubstantiated for fuck's sake.

Actually, nevermind.

I felt that Kiryan was making a sexual advance on me earlier, and I'm now uncomfortable browsing this forum. Shev, can you do something about this?
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby avak » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:08 pm

Well, like I said...that "scientist" could be the same in both examples. Even ignoring that, they constitute 0.1% of the signatories. Let's also ignore the 15 minutes of fame you can get for saying something controversial like that. If there was more proof of coercion it would be documented and drawn out everywhere...so therefore, there is no evidence of coercion beyond one (or two) ambiguous, unsubstantiated claims. And therefore, that article is junk....as is fox news....as is the faux outrage over climategate.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:45 pm

Look, I am not saying there is with certainty a vast conspiracy. I'm saying there is evidence that science is not ruling the day because of climategate and now this petition. The politics of this are evident.

pull your heads out of your asses and quit saying there is nothing to see here. SCIENTISTS FUCKING DELETED DATA. you don't understand how bad that is and looks?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby Sarvis » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:54 pm

kiryan wrote:Look, I am not saying there is with certainty a vast conspiracy.


kiryan wrote:1 scientist is enough to prove it happens.


kiryan wrote:I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that this isn't proof that coercion isn't occuring.


And really Kiryan, the worst part is that there is no proof any coercion DID occur. Any more than there is proof you sexually harassed me earlier.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:11 pm

A signatory on the document said "I FELT PRESSURED", but theres no proof that he felt like he was being forced to sign it. No evidence at all.

Rubbish
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby avak » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:22 pm

What data were deleted? I have a hard science background. I deleted data all the time. I even deleted data on climate change.

Is there any evidence that he/she was pressured? Any? At all? Besides their word for it?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:38 pm

... seriously? you're going to argue that someone saying they felt pressured was not actually pressured...

Ever been handed a "Donate to United Way" form at work? Ever tried handing it back and saying, sorry I don't support organizations that support abortion? No, I wasn't pressured to donate, not by any of the blank and incredulous stares I got from an office full of Democrats and women. No one threatened me, no one talked to me at all for a few days. Obviously I wasn't being pressured.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby Sarvis » Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:51 pm

kiryan wrote:... seriously? you're going to argue that someone saying they felt pressured was not actually pressured...



Apparently the problem is that in Kiryan's little world no one ever lies. Err... unless they are in support of global warming theories. Or are a liberal.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby avak » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:00 pm

Okay, so the only concrete thing we have here is that someone, we don't even know who, felt pressured. Like I said, article=garbage. Do you think it was the, "We would like you to consider signing on to this letter..." intro that made him feel threatened?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:27 pm

ok so basically you believe these scientists lied about feeling pressured, but other scientists don't lie about climate science.

Well heres the profit motive. Billions of dollars for scientists to monitor the Earth. Actually this is something I would support.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579956,00.html

An organization representing the grandest ambitions of climate scientists wants Western nations to spend at least $2.1 billion a year for the next five years — and as much as $60 billion overall during that period — to glean huge troves of still undiscovered climate information from the world's land, air and seas.

I won't quote the numerous statements in this article about the lack of data and coordination of data and general knowledge about how the Earth's climate and the sun works, because you'll just say oh its fox news.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby Sarvis » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:31 pm

kiryan wrote:ok so basically you believe these scientists lied about feeling pressured, but other scientists don't lie about climate science.

Well heres the profit motive. Billions of dollars for scientists to monitor the Earth. Actually this is something I would support.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579956,00.html

An organization representing the grandest ambitions of climate scientists wants Western nations to spend at least $2.1 billion a year for the next five years — and as much as $60 billion overall during that period — to glean huge troves of still undiscovered climate information from the world's land, air and seas.

I won't quote the numerous statements in this article about the lack of data and coordination of data and general knowledge about how the Earth's climate and the sun works, because you'll just say oh its fox news.



So what you're saying is that the "scientific" opponents of climate change theories DON'T want data to validate their claims? They want to... what... guess?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:57 pm

No I'm saying that this proposal, from climate scientists supporting global warming with their whole heart, ridicule their own data as being woefull incomplete at the same time they proclaim to the world the certain truth of global warming.

This immense store of information is urgently needed to gain a true picture of the vastly complicated climatic and environmental interactions of the planet, according to a draft version of an update report on the huge project, known as the Global Observing System for Climate
...

The vast environmental inventory that is contemplated in the current report is vital information that the GCOS document makes clear is still missing from the picture of, among other things, the true extent of greenhouse gas and carbon concentrations on planet Earth
...
Time and again the draft report makes clear that "high quality" and comprehensive information is still required to fill in huge blanks in scientific knowledge on everything from the importance of clouds and water vapor to global warming, to the actual volume of man-made vs. natural greenhouse gas concentrations in the world's oceans, to the true extent of ice-melting and ice-formation at the globe's poles, with many more unknowns still to be determined.
...
"Ocean observing networks, their associated infrastructure and analysis systems are not adequate to meet the specific needs of the UNFCCC for most climate variables and in most regions of the planet," it states.
Yayaril
Sojourner
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby Yayaril » Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:41 pm

Kiryan, quit sexually harassing Sarvis.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:03 am

yea debunked, nothing to f*king see

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10 ... 4504.shtml
As the science scandal known as ClimateGate grows, the largest U.S. physicists' association is finding itself roiled by internal dissent and allegations of conflict of interest over a forthcoming review of its position statement on man-made global warming.
...
Happer and other members of the APS have been urging the society to take a second look at the 2007 statement, which claims the evidence for the CO2-global warming link is "incontrovertible" and "we must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." Their letter circulated last month says: "By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done."

(and on the profit motive)

Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara who has been an APS member for 65 years, says that he asked both the current and incoming APS presidents to require that Socolow recuse himself from a review of this subject, and both refused.

...

As the full import of the ClimateGate leak became evident, Happer, Lewis, and others redoubled their efforts to ask APS members to support a review of what they considered to be bad science. They now say 77 supporters are fellows of major scientific societies, 14 are members of the National Academies, and one is a Nobel laureate; Happer adds that "some have accepted a career risk by signing the petition."

(now why would this be a career risk? because they might be run out of town for questioning group think?)
That means the review will be "chaired by a guy who is hip deep in conflicts of interest, running a million-dollar program that is utterly dependent on global warming funding," Lewis says. In addition, he points out that the group charged with taking a second look at the 2007 statement, the Panel on Public Affairs, is the same body that drafted it in the first place. That, "too has a smell of people investigating themselves," Lewis says.

...

And 141 scientists have signed a statement at CopenhagenClimateChallenge.org that says actual evidence of human-caused global warming is lacking and "unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation."

TOTALLY SETTLED AND OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED, THANK YOU NOTHING TO SEE.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:12 am

Good job with the completely misleading and ridiculous title to this thread, despite the article you posted not saying anything of the sort, or debunking anything about it.

This is disrespectful to the entire board community.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: ClimateGate Debunked

Postby kiryan » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:36 pm

supposed quotes from the climate gate emails per this anti climate change website. These are emails that basically demonstrate that certain scientists, highly respected climate scientists, did not care to refute dissenting opinion with science, but engaged in politics and bullying to eliminate dissenting views.

And you expect me to trust people are tellin the truth when they will go to the lengths of getting people fired and ousted to protect their "science" from criticism?

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100096

From: Tom Wigley, January 20, 2005. If you think that [James E.] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted.[20] [Author's note: Saiers, the editor of Geophysical Research Letters, was later ousted.]

From: Michael E. Mann, March 11, 2003. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature." Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.[21]

From: Edward Cook, June 4, 2003. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. . . . If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically. . . . I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review--Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting--to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please.[22]

From: Tom Wigley, April 24, 2003. Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work--must get rid of [Hans] von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like [David R.] Legates, [Robert C.] Balling, [Richard S.] Lindzen, [Patrick J.] Michaels, [S. Fred] Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.[23]

From: Phil Jones, July 8, 2004. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is![24]

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests