Thread: The eery silence that is ClimateGate

Originally Posted by Bubba

Can you not see that there is no freedom of information here?

You make good points, but let's get one thing straight here. I'm not that far away from your's, Dave or Abachler tune. I just prefer to be more cautious and not entirely discredit a position that keeps being supported by a large number of scientists who are in a position to know better than me.

I haven't ever read any argument that beats the logic of global warming. Not once. This of course doesn't mean global warming (or climate change, whatever) is an inevitable truth. We all are intelligent men enough to understand that. But that alone should also make it very well aware to any of us in this "room", that the contrary is also true.

What I argue against is fixed minds. Closed minds. Opinions formulated on emotion or by political motivations that have nothing to do with hard facts. And most of all, I particularly argue against the indoctrination of those opinions. And it is precisely because this is what global warming has become, that I again say this has become an unsolvable issue. It's no longer about the climate but who can shout louder and gather the bigger flock of sheep.

I'm opposed to anyone, scientists included, who pretends to know all the answers. I'm particularly opposed to anyone who dares to spread those answers as godly truths without making it a case to prove them beyond any doubt through scientific means, and not by campaign ads.

To anyone like that I'll call them a buffoon. No matter what side of the fence they sit. Because Global Warming or Climate Change is not your Monday news sex scandal. It should be discussed only in scientific terms.

If questioning global warming and/or it's causes makes me an un-educated idiot then so be it. I guess asking questions about why this or that computer science algorithm works makes me an idiot as well. If asking questions and/or questioning proven ideas in computer science makes me a thinking man and a guy who thinks outside the box then how can questioning a theory with less evidence than all that make me a fool?

No. That makes you smart and obviously educated person.
What would me you a fool would be believing it's false because it hasn't been proved it's true.

We are on the exact same pitch when it comes to understanding that we cannot believe the press. But that doesn't make blogs any better. And definitely it p...es me off seeing on this thread links to blogs owned by anarchists hackers who think they are now either scientists or accredited investigators. p...es me of because this is how decadent the whole climate debate has become that we even feel such a lowlife opinion is worth quoting, while credited scientists are utterly ignored. Frankly!

So exactly how do you propose to filter this information? Who can or can you not trust? Do you really want to trust the scientific debate to bloggers? This is not your usual filter. This is "SELECT * FROM Blogs WHERE Name = NULL", unless of course said blog is owned by a scientist. Those are the ones you will wish to filter and try and formulate an opinion from.

...

But yes. I have been slowly migrating from the "aye" side to the "nay" side. I'm not there yet because as I said I cannot find information that completely discredits many of the theories. But neither can you or anyone else.

And if you have been paying attention, not even one of the most respected scientists in the field who are supportive of these theories, defend them as absolute truths. If they didn't it in the past, they are today very careful to make that abundantly clear. It's the news, the politicians, the invested interests, the wannabe-scientists, false-investigators and word-of-mouth perpetrated by the stupid and blissfuly ignorant masses that have turned the Global Warming debate into a matter of life or death.

So exactly how do you propose to filter this information? Who can or can you not trust? Do you really want to trust the scientific debate to bloggers? This is not your usual filter. This is "SELECT * FROM Blogs WHERE Name = NULL", unless of course said blog is owned by a scientist. Those are the ones you will wish to filter and try and formulate an opinion from.

Hehe. Even in a debate such as this you manage to throw in some SQL. Nice...very nice. And it also puts your point into perspective and I will agree. It is extremely hard to know who to trust. If it comes off as alarmism to me then I immediately begin to shy away and ask myself what are the motives and pre-suppositions of the writer - regardless of the side they are taking. I don't cater to alarmism for or against the issue I just offer up the idea that we should tread cautiously.

But this is what happens when mass media creates an information void. We must turn to other sources that may or may not be as accurate and truthful as a professional news agency. All in all I trust that CNN, FOX, and others are not purposely trying to misinform but I believe both have gotten so caught up in their competitiveness that they have forgotten about their consumers. I really believe that CNN or FOX would or would not cover a story such as this if they thought the other guy was going to. It's like they are trying to be diametrically opposed to one another just for ratings. In the end we the people get some very strange slants to the news. It used to be that they would race each other to air the story so they could be first. I actually sorta miss those days. But I guess in the age when information is at our fingertips there really is no such thing as being the first to get the story on the airwaves.

It's the news, the politicians, the invested interests, the wannabe-scientists, false-investigators and word-of-mouth perpetrated by the stupid and blissfuly ignorant masses that have turned the Global Warming debate into a matter of life or death.

Agreed. Unfortunately scientists don't make policies and spend trillions of taxpayer dollars. Politicians do that and if they have their feathers ruffled over this thing, even if the scientists don't quite share their alarmism, we are headed for trouble.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I haven't ever read any argument that beats the logic of global warming. Not once. This of course doesn't mean global warming (or climate change, whatever) is an inevitable truth. We all are intelligent men enough to understand that. But that alone should also make it very well aware to any of us in this "room", that the contrary is also true.

I don't think it matters if global warming is a dire a threat or non event, we need to do something before oil runs out.

The age of fossil fuels is ending, the global economy needs to expand (or we will see another massive contraction) and we need a new source of energy.

Carbon trading (a penalty on fossil fuels) will stimulate the move to cleaner energy and allow the establishment of new green industries.

Originally Posted by Kennedy

How long have we been collecting meteorological data? 100 yrs, 500 yrs, 1000? Hmm, no?

Studies of dendrochronology, pollen analysis, ice cores and glacier studies extend climate data back over 2,000 years (up to 10,000 for tree rings, 800,000 for ice cores).

Actual temperature measurements stretch back to 1850 but many more historical documents routinely recorded this type of data.

EDIT: the old SQL jk?
SELECT * FROM Readers WHERE Clue>0
0 Rows Returned

EDIT: the old SQL jk?
SELECT * FROM Readers WHERE Clue>0
0 Rows Returned

Haven't seen that one in a long time.

Carbon trading (a penalty on fossil fuels) will stimulate the move to cleaner energy and allow the establishment of new green industries.

Will it? I guess you could say those industries will adapt or die but policies that force the private sector to find alternate solutions normally do not work and often backfire.
Key problems with these types of policies:

• They are forcing technology to do something it may not yet be ready for
• Market forces may not yet be ready to make the move
• Companies might not be in a financial position to make the move
• The technology may not yet be economically feasible and no amount of forced policies will speed up the science.

You can't force legislation down companies throats and expect them to thrive. I'm a true capitalist and as such I say let market forces determine when to make the move. If it is true we have about 50 years of oil left then market forces alone will drive companies like Exxon and Mobil to look for alternatives if they wish to remain a viable company. They are not just going to milk the oil and run the company dry to the last drop. No company does that and that is not a sustainable plan for any CEO to abide by. I believe if we allow the market to run its course fossil fuels will become rarer and rarer and thus more expensive. Consumers will get angry (much like the $4 gas) and gasoline and other carbon industries will no longer be economically feasible. Because of this you must know fossil fuel companies are already looking for alternatives. But forcing the market will not work and could end in disaster. Markets change when the forces are there to change them and not a moment sooner.

I apologize if it seems that I'm constantly trying to correct you, but there are a few things you said that make me scratch my head.

Originally Posted by Bubba

When a climate scientist on the other side states in an email that they truly have no real explanation for the warming yet publicly the same people act as if their word is somehow holy and without contestation - you'd think climate science was all about being a religious fanatic.

That quote wasn't about warming in general, it was about a specific piece of data. It's not like the climate scientist stated that he had no explanation for all the warming that has taken place.

Originally Posted by Bubba

They clearly are not and several studies of various news agencies by universities reveals that 75% of the stories on CNN are lefttist oriented. And this study was done by rather liberal universities.

Do you remember anything about this study? I searched and didn't find anything that was close to this kind of result.

Originally Posted by Bubba

Oh wait they aren't called liberal anymore...sorry...progressive universities. Whatever. Just like global warming isn't called global warming anymore b/c there isn't enough warming to make the name stick. So now it's climate change which is really dumb and akin to saying that I believe that the weather changes from time to time. How stupid we have become.

Liberal was turned into a dirty word by some conservatives, although it is less so now since the latest "dirty word" seems to be socialism (as if socialism was some horrible thing in and of itself). I imagine that's why some people on the left prefer the term "progressive".

And if I remember correctly, the coining of the phrase "climate change" was done by a global warming skeptic trying to make the whole thing sound less scary. It wasn't changed by climate scientists because of any change in warming.

Originally Posted by Bubba

Can you not see that there is no freedom of information here? Can you not see the obvious attempt to cover up a theory and pass it off as fact even when it has holes in it as big as the Grand Canyon in Arizona? Why are those who ask questions marked as idiots or stupid? Isn't science about asking questions...even questioning known things further to find out more information and make new discoveries? It's not like we are questioning gravity here or the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. We are questioning a theory which last time I checked is perfectly valid. It is perfectly valid for a scientist to go against the norm and question. Something tells me that if someone at IBM did not go against the norm of the day or their ideas were somehow silenced...we wouldn't have the PC.

I don't understand this point of view at all.

This debate exists exactly because of those things you think are missing. Because there is freedom of information, because people are allowed to provide alternate points of view and because people are constantly questioning. That is why climate change is such a major issue right now. If it wasn't for all of that, the issue would have been dealt with years or decades ago.

Originally Posted by Bubba

When I see a scientist become extremely defensive to the point of calling another scientist names or attempting to tarnish their reputation just b/c they disagree on a couple of things....it tells me that defensive scientist has a whole hell of a lot to hide. If he didn't then his theory would pass the litany of tests and questions and then it would be looked into further.

I wonder, did you read the links on realclimate.org or anywhere else where an explanation of some of the more well-known emails is given? Are you looking at this from their point of view at all? Imagine you are a good scientist who has worked hard for years and found important information that affects the entire world. Now imagine that you try to make that information known so that decisions can be made based on the information you've found. You expect the conclusions to be questioned and double and triple-checked, in fact that's part of what you have already done. But then there are those who claim that your conclusion is flawed. However, instead of basing that claim on real science, you feel those denials are based on personal motivations or irrational fear. You feel you've answered the legitimate questions well enough, but others are just yelling too loud for people to hear your answers. Would you not be frustrated? Would you not be defensive?

Originally Posted by Bubba

But what is happening right now is essentially the warming side saying...."Just trust us...the earth is warming and if we don't act now we will all die or we will completely mess up the planet'. For all of you who are so dead set against religion yet believe this type of behavior is science I believe you are some of the most religious people I've ever met.

Again, why would you say this? Their findings have been published in scientific journals, they have tons of data and analysis on the internet for people to look over, and this has been a theory for decades. Just because you haven't read the literature doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It isn't "trust us", it's here are our studies, we feel that they are pretty conclusive.

Originally Posted by Bubba

The real truth must be that their is a ton of money waiting to be made when new green treaties get passed. This is the only explanation I can come up with as to why bills and policies are being rushed through without truly investigating both sides of the issue. I guess a lot of you just can't wait to spend 43 trillion dollars on something we think is occurring. If questioning global warming and/or it's causes makes me an un-educated idiot then so be it. I guess asking questions about why this or that computer science algorithm works makes me an idiot as well. If asking questions and/or questioning proven ideas in computer science makes me a thinking man and a guy who thinks outside the box then how can questioning a theory with less evidence than all that make me a fool?

Because the evidence exists and you're assuming that it doesn't. You're making assumptions about the motivations of the people writing the emails based on other assumptions you've already made. You're not looking at it from their point of view, considering how they might react if the world was as they saw it. You're (apparently) not reading their current explanations for what they meant in those emails. You are not educating yourself. You ask why bills and policies are being rushed through as if this hasn't been a debated issue for decades.

The problem is not asking questions. You are at your best when you are inquisitive and questioning things that set off flags in your head. But, in my opinion, you are not at your best when you assume that your assumptions are reality. Doing this can lead to all kinds of surreal conclusions and apparently make you somewhat worked up as well. If it is so easy to find so many false assumptions that drive your opinions, perhaps you should reconsider whether those opinions are as based in reality as you think. I urge you to try to look at it from the point of view of a legitimate climate scientist who's studies make him almost certain that global warming is real and is a problem. Read the links on realclimate or wherever you can find their point of view written down. It really does make sense if you look at it from their perspective. That doesn't mean it's true, it just means it very well might be.

Originally Posted by Bubba

If it is true we have about 50 years of oil left

Not if (as is currently happening) a billion middle class Indians and Chinese want the same lifestyle as we enjoy (currently 1% of Indians own a car but this will change that Tata launches world's cheapest car - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)).

Originally Posted by Bubba

(much like the $4 gas)

Petrol is already US$5.50 / US gallon here and much more in the UK.

How do you feel about US$20 / gallon or higher in 2-3 years?

Wait, this whole Climategate thing is about 2-3 out-of-context quotes from stolen e-mails?

I could go to jail as a serial killer if someone stole my e-mails, and picked 2-3 isolated quotes from it.

Liberal was turned into a dirty word by some conservatives, although it is less so now since the latest "dirty word" seems to be socialism (as if socialism was some horrible thing in and of itself). I imagine that's why some people on the left prefer the term "progressive".

I was about to respond to you until I read this. I must say I do not understand this point of view at all.

Here is one story about the bias in media. I did not intend to say 75% of the stories were leftist but that most media outlets such as CNN were in the 70's on there ADA score. The ADA score is talked about in this article, however, it is unclear exactly how it is computed.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

wonder, did you read the links on realclimate.org or anywhere else where an explanation of some of the more well-known emails is given? Are you looking at this from their point of view at all? Imagine you are a good scientist who has worked hard for years and found important information that affects the entire world. Now imagine that you try to make that information known so that decisions can be made based on the information you've found. You expect the conclusions to be questioned and double and triple-checked, in fact that's part of what you have already done. But then there are those who claim that your conclusion is flawed. However, instead of basing that claim on real science, you feel those denials are based on personal motivations or irrational fear. You feel you've answered the legitimate questions well enough, but others are just yelling too loud for people to hear your answers. Would you not be frustrated? Would you not be defensive?

You are assuming they have been double and triple checked. Where does it say that? One email reads that if peer review fails the document they will re-examine the process of peer review. That is exactly what I'm talking about. If things were being double and triple checked and there was an open forum for communication then I believe the entire issue would be a moot point. That is the entire argument, here. Scientific process is not being followed.

Wait, this whole Climategate thing is about 2-3 out-of-context quotes from stolen e-mails?

It's not quite that simple but some would have to believe it is. It is actually thousands of emails but only a few of them seem to contain some very damning evidence of data tampering. I'm assuming the others are boring day to day stuff. But that's what a discovery phase of litigation would do in any company. Most uncover extremely mundane boring emails but it only takes a few to make a case. I believe a few emails here indeed does make a case that at least some data tampering and associated coverup has occurred. However that evidence could never be admissable in a US court since it was obtained illegally and not through a discovery phase. I'm not sure what the laws are in the UK where the event occurred.

That doesn't mean it's true, it just means it very well might be.

That's a 43 trillion dollar guess or assumption. It is being touted as true and anyone not 'believing it' is an idiot. That is the problem. If it were not being touted as such and were not being used to direct political policy then I would have no problem. But your statement does not line up with the official company line so to speak that is being blasted across the airwaves. They don't say it could be true or it might - they say it is beyond a shadow of a doubt and while warming is occurring the exact cause of it is not as black and white of an issue as most claim it is.

As far as I understand, scientists are human beings too and some data tampering happens in all fields of study. (If it is an important matter, it tends to be found out soon, though.) So even if the out-of-context quotes do happen to indicate that, how far can you go with the conclusions?

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data - Times Online

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.

The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.

Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.

Emphasis mine, though somehwat borrowed from an evil blog that provided a "quality controlled and homogenised" snippet with the link.

Seriously, though, it would have been nice if the FOIA requests were not stonewalled and earlier requests by skeptics for the source data would have been honored. Then, either those confident in the implications of warming could have had more ammo proving their point, or inconsistencies and issues and errors could have been pointed out by skeptics -- and perhaps any issues would have been resolved by now.

Instead, are we leaving politicians to decide things when there is less than "absolute confidence" about the problem? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Originally Posted by rdrast

Is anyone here old enough to actually remember the huge scare and hype over "Global Cooling" in the early to mid 70's?

There were going to be catastrophe's, glaciers, hemisphere spanning storms, and all because of... Carbon! Reflecting sunlight back into space!

And they said we'd be out of petrol (or "gas" if you're silly) by the year 2000. Oh wait never mind, they found more.

Is anyone here old enough to actually remember the huge scare and hype over "Global Cooling" in the early to mid 70's?

There were going to be catastrophe's, glaciers, hemisphere spanning storms, and all because of... Carbon! Reflecting sunlight back into space!

If there are substances that create greenhouse effect (CO2, water vapour) and other substances that reflect sunlight (sulphur oxides or something like that?), then all it takes is to find a right balance