nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 982
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
11-22-11 07:52 AM - Post#142537
It looks like there was another batch of emails recently released in time for the holidays:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategat e-2-0/
I don't have much time today to discuss, but here are a few select quotes:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
Jason
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1970
Reg: 09-03-07
|
11-22-11 09:22 AM - Post#142539
In response to nomoon
Regarding the first batch of emails....
Wiki:
Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14] The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."[15][16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations
American Meteorological Society:
For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true—which is not yet clearly the case—the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited
A. A. Leiserowitz, Director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change, and colleagues found in 2010 that:
Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists. The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology. Nonetheless, Americans overall continue to trust scientists more than other sources of information about global warming
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4934
Reg: 05-30-08
|
11-22-11 06:33 PM - Post#142569
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
I remember this discussion in the mid-1980's where we would have to trade in carbon credits to keep countries like Brazil from destroying forest that helps to clean the air of carbons. People said back then it was nonsense.
For the first time in the history of Bali, natives that have lived there for generations are now buying Air Conditioners, becasue their homes are too hot at night. Not because they have the money either, becasue of the way electricity is sold most people cannot afford to go to the higher rates.
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3755
Reg: 03-29-06
|
11-22-11 07:08 PM - Post#142573
In response to carygold
I remember back when wooly mammoths had to buy air conditioners too. Darn cavemen and their fires!!!!
| Pup has left the building. |
|
Al C
enthusiast
Posts: 5538
Loc: McKinney/Allen, TX
Reg: 02-16-01
|
11-23-11 08:49 AM - Post#142596
In response to pup
I remember back when wooly mammoths had to buy air conditioners too. Darn cavemen and their fires!!!!
You're like ... old, or something.
|
nomoon
enthusiast
Posts: 982
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-31-06
|
11-23-11 07:13 PM - Post#142610
In response to Jimi Ray Clapton
In my opinion, all of investigations were pathetically negligent. None of them interviewed anyone with opposing views. None bothered to ask Steve McIntyre for any information. All witness questioned were friendly. The Muir Russell committee didn't bother to ask Phil Jones whether he had deleted any emails. The Penn State investigation was an abomination. There was zero cross examination. One of the two interviewees hadn't read anyone of the emails. They essentially asked Micheal Mann whether he had done anything wrong and Mann said "no." Their conclusion was that there was "no evidence" of anything done wrong.
In my opinion, a more accurate summary of the original climategate situation can be found
here.
- Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.
- The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
- The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
- They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate. - They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years.
- They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
- They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
- They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
- They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
- They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
|
|
