Reply With Quote
Completely hilarious that so many people have bought the Global Warming sham for so long (and many will continue to buy it). Those e-mails are an amazing read. It's amazing how arrogant people can be, and how often that arrogance muddies the water.
This was a long time coming. Data never agreed from different sources and the political stakes were huge. You are talking about billions of dollars that impact a ton of areas. Grants to universities, the "green" industry, wind/solar contractors, battery manufacturers, etc. Not to mention the loss in efficiency by swapping coal/oil for wind/solar.
You can't put a bunch of scientists in positions of political power and expect them to be truthful.
Completely hilarious that so many people have bought the Global Warming sham for so long (and many will continue to buy it). Those e-mails are an amazing read. It's amazing how arrogant people can be, and how often that arrogance muddies the water.
What really pissed me off was the NASA/GISS data proves the opposite of what these alarmists would say, and some of them worked for these agencies!
Should I tell everyone...
See... I told you so?
I suppose they could be waiting for Algoracle to issue the talking points but, I'm encouraged by the lack of apologetics from the Envirowhackos of this forum.
Maybe this is just a bridge too far for them. We can only hope.
You have to remember. Their marching orders haven't been issued yet.
What do you want them to say? They're trying to make this about violation of privacy. But there's very little to argue when we're all reading this kind of stuff:And from what I've read so far Keith Biffra is actually the "good guy" there - the only one showing some restraint (there are even displays of a "heavy conscience", genuine interest in science and trying to act reasonably). The other guys are complete s .
From: Keith Briffa To: [email protected] Subject: Re: quick note on TAR Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007 Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan*. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful research ! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes
Keith
In any case, the big problem for them is going to be the FOIA issue. Conspiring to not comply with FOIA can - and should - be subject to criminal procedures.
Still, I hope people finally start to understand that, whatever they believe about GW or MMGW, these guys aren't worthy the label of scientists - and were in fact hurting scientific knowledge. Science is always a co-operative process - no science is made when people simply don't put the data available for others to replicate their results. It will never cease to amaze me that people wanted to reshape the world economy due to studies made by guys who simply wont' provide the raw data on which they based their alleged findings.
Hey Wild Cobra......wonder where old RufNReady is at. At the BS that
wannabe scientist put out. Wonder if he is still peddling his ass on his
bicycle to save the world......
This is from Breitbart
US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved "one step closer" to a "strong operational agreement" on climate change at next month's Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders.
======================
So he's just going to ignore this huge scandal? Where are all the media outlets? Shouldn't this be breaking news on CNN? Do all the global warming kooks really think we're going to believe them on anything? This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
What scandal? This is hardly news. This feud has been going on for a long time now.
Now, i completely agree that making policy decisions with these theories is bad news. But it's been bad news for a long time now.
Not a clue, but he claims to be an expert at the subject, so why does an amateur scientist like me run circles around him?Hey Wild Cobra......wonder where old RufNReady is at. At the BS that
wannabe scientist put out. Wonder if he is still peddling his ass on his
bicycle to save the world......
One step closer and money well spent would be to put USA pollution technology on Asia's coal power plants.
Really? That's odd. Have you read the e-mails and files available? The feud may have been going for long, but the recent events are of no minor importance.
Heh, they've been trying to downplay the issue and counting on the "prestige press" (to quote one of the e-mails) to pretend never happened. They remind me of Nixon in the "I'm not a crook" stage. Anyway:This is from Breitbart
US President Barack Obama said Tuesday the world has moved "one step closer" to a "strong operational agreement" on climate change at next month's Copenhagen summit after his talks with Indian and Chinese leaders.
======================
So he's just going to ignore this huge scandal? Where are all the media outlets? Shouldn't this be breaking news on CNN? Do all the global warming kooks really think we're going to believe them on anything? This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...924988354.html
And:When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn’t work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. “The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this,” he wrote. “IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.”
It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren’t averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,” goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Mr. Mann’s main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.
For the record, when we’ve asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he “won’t dignify that question with a response.” Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he “did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way,” but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn’t to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann’s work, much less his right to remain silent.
However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.
Key GOP Senator Pushes for Probe Into Climate Change Research
by
FOXNews.com
Sen. James Inhofe told the Washington Times in a radio interview Monday that he will press for a probe into whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "cooked the science" to make global warming appear real.
~
A Republican lawmaker is calling for an investigation into whether a U.N. panel "cooked the science" on climate change following the publication of more than 1,000 private e-mails that global warming skeptics say proves the threat is overstated.
Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, told the Washington Times in a radio interview Monday that he will press for a probe into whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."
"This thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," the Oklahoma Republican said. (...)
"If these e-mails show there is collusion between scientists, a manipulation of raw temperature figures and pushing out scientists in the process, that would undermine the IPCC," Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Inhofe, told FoxNews.com.
So scientists are capable of data manipulation too? That's some ground breaking thought - I always considered them saints incapable of doing things that were wrong.
This should lead to more scrutinization of the work those scientists did and pretty much nothing more. Its far from an indictment on science.
Who's saying it is? The point is precisely that these scientists - the most prominent and important proponents of the MMGW model - don't deserve to be called so and haven't been making good science.So scientists are capable of data manipulation too? That's some ground breaking thought - I always considered them saints incapable of doing things that were wrong.
This should lead to more scrutinization of the work those scientists did and pretty much nothing more. Its far from an indictment on science.
Of course, given the fact that public policies were and are, as of now, being designed sustained in the work of these same scientists, the consequences must be more than a deeper scrutinization of the work of these scientists - a re-examination of the policies being pursuit is needed.
Certain policy has been dictated by sketchy science for a long time now. Not just in the 'global warming' field.
Important? Sure.
New? Not really.
Did you really need to read any of those letters to know that the two camps were doing this? That's why you simply don't base policy on theories.
Something I've been telling anyone that wants to hear for a while now.
Those scientists are far from a lynch pin in climate change theory. You could easily remove the work they've done and still have a huge collection of work supporting climate change theory.
The two camps were doing this?
Do you have any reason to equate - from an ethical and academic perspective - the two camps?
Let's not confuse things: yes, the academic world - even out of high-profile fields like this - can be ruthless and cruel (and generally is). Yes, people can be very mean. Yes, many times we become over-defensive about our models. Yes, often that leads us to not comply with the protocol. Yes, the peer-review system has been broken for awhile. However, these guys went WAY OVER that. Let's not fall in the temptation to make a moral equivalence. Whatever the spin they want to put on it, this isn't "business as usual".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
