Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Thanks Kallend. good read! I quite like this part.

"Mann explained.

Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.

David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away!"

Yes AGW is unquestionable, the science is settled.

Thanks
Saved me the time of going to the link
Nice job kallend

You could also try reading the headline.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

hoisted by his own petard

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

hoisted by his own petard

Apparently you don't understand what you read.

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Apparently you dont understand what you write.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

hoisted by his own petard

Apparently you don't understand what you read.

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Personally, if I was a climate scientist, and I am not, and I had a group of moronic assholes who did nothing but continually waste my time and resources with incessant FOI requests, I would tend to just tell them to go fuck themselves. If its good enough for the former vice-president.. its good enough for assholes who are incapable of seeing the VAST amount of data for what it is.

There is climate change going on, you do not need to be a climatologist to see how much has changed if you have spent your life in the high mountains and in the far north. These are the areas most susceptible to the effects... not those who live in the midwest or the south, where the effects are not easily seen.

[kallend 2,107]

What part of: "However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions" don't you understand?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

hoisted by his own petard

Apparently you don't understand what you read.

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Personally, if I was a climate scientist, and I am not, and I had a group of moronic assholes who did nothing but continually waste my time and resources with incessant FOI requests, I would tend to just tell them to go fuck themselves. If its good enough for the former vice-president.. its good enough for assholes who are incapable of seeing the VAST amount of data for what it is.

There is climate change going on, you do not need to be a climatologist to see how much has changed if you have spent your life in the high mountains and in the far north. These are the areas most susceptible to the effects... not those who live in the midwest or the south, where the effects are not easily seen.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

Hey Marc, you like AP reports (at least, you often cite them). Try this one:

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980

Professor, you and I both know that the emails didn't contain data to confirm or debunk global warming. The emails discussed the doubts and hiding the data. Now why have doubts and why hide data unless...........???

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Hey Marc, you like AP reports (at least, you often cite them). Try this one:

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980

Professor, you and I both know that the emails didn't contain data to confirm or debunk global warming. The emails discussed the doubts and hiding the data. Now why have doubts and why hide data unless...........???

Apparently you've never done any real science research. If you had, you'd know that doubt is an important prt of scientific curiosity, and just because some politically motivated jerk wants your data before you've finished analyzing it doesn't mean you have to give it to him.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

NASA's data is our data, not some "politically motivated jerk" that works for NASA. We can all look at it together. Unless........

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

NASA's data is our data, not some "politically motivated jerk" that works for NASA. We can all look at it together. Unless........

Great concept. I'd like a good look at our NSA's cryptography unit, to wander around inside our Area 51, and maybe catch a ride in one of our FA18s.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

NASA's data is our data, not some "politically motivated jerk" that works for NASA. We can all look at it together. Unless........

Great concept. I'd like a good look at our NSA's cryptography unit, to wander around inside our Area 51, and maybe catch a ride in one of our FA18s.

Nice bit of hyperbole. If you were as smart as you claim to be, you would know there is a big difference.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Hey Marc, you like AP reports (at least, you often cite them). Try this one:

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980

Professor, you and I both know that the emails didn't contain data to confirm or debunk global warming. The emails discussed the doubts and hiding the data. Now why have doubts and why hide data unless...........???

There it is. It creates the spectre that something is going on. As Amazon pointed out, one need merely go to the high mountains of the north and see changes. This is proof that human activities are warming the climate.

All that's needed is an inference of badness. When you've got guys discussing how to quiet dissent, etc. Mann admitted he's human. I haven't seen any admission that the "contrarians" are human, as well. FOIA requests are viewed as harassment, etc.

Yeah. It's a pain in the ass. Take government funding and it's a price you pay. Mann stated he didn't follow advice of someone to delete attachments, etc. That is some fucking huge stuff rught there. We won't know it unless someone goes in and checks all of the metadata, which would be time consuming and be viewed as a witchhunt.

Some of the shit discussed in the emails is shady. I've mentioned on here so many times (and others have disagreed) that scientists are human and have a personal stake in their conclusions. We saw it in Bohr and Einstein. It's all over the place.

Mann doesn't want to be wrong. Nobody does.

It is with this thought - scientists are human - that I view so many things with cynicism. What is the interest of the proponent? Maybe it's because of my job that I see this slant with everything.

I like looking at the science. I am familiar with the greenhouse mechanism. There must be more...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

NASA's data is our data, not some "politically motivated jerk" that works for NASA. We can all look at it together. Unless........

Great concept. I'd like a good look at our NSA's cryptography unit, to wander around inside our Area 51, and maybe catch a ride in one of our FA18s.

So you view basic science that is supposed to be peer reviewed as you view applied science and technology? You know the difference.

Not all persons who want to see the data a crackpot kooks hellbent on harassment. Some, like me, find it interesting. Some, like me, know that data and facts can lead to conflicting inferences. So let's see the data. Let us check for errors.

What is your interest in stating that the data should be inaccessible? What are you interested in defending? I'm asking this to get your perspective.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 444]

Crickets....crickets.....

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

What is your interest in stating that the data should be inaccessible? What are you interested in defending? I'm asking this to get your perspective.

Data shouldn't be inaccessible, but neither should it be available on demand until the researchers have analyzed it, verified it and are ready to present it. Do you make all your firm's working documents available on demand to anyone that wants to see them?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

What is your interest in stating that the data should be inaccessible? What are you interested in defending? I'm asking this to get your perspective.

Data shouldn't be inaccessible, but neither should it be available on demand until the researchers have analyzed it, verified it and are ready to present it. Do you make all your firm's working documents available on demand to anyone that wants to see them?

Of course not! Again, that is a different scenario. If the client (who is paying for it) wants to see the documents, then he/she will get them. Secondly, this is not raw research I'm doing. However, if I cite a law or a case, then I better have that cite available. The raw information is available to anyone. I merely use it to support.

How many of these requests for data relate to incomplete data? How many relate to data related to conclusions already made?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,107]

It's really simple, counselor. If you go to the trouble of doing the fieldwork, it's common courtesy that you get to look at the data, think about them, and analyze them before a competitor does. Once you publish in a peer reviewed journal the data should then be available to others.

I am reminded of the big fuss about Crick and Watson getting access to Rosalind Franklin's X-Ray data on DNA, and doing their own analysis before she published. She was long dead before she finally got recognition for her work, while they picked up a Nobel prize.

As I wrote some time back, this is NOT the smoking gun all you deniers seem to think it is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SwampGod 0]

it seems some folks have actually read through the "climategate" e-mails. anyone care to comment?

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

thanks!

-eli

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Hey Marc, you like AP reports (at least, you often cite them). Try this one:

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980

Would that be the AP report that had 5 reporters fact-checking it, vs. the 11 that they had fact-checking Palin's book?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

it seems some folks have actually read through the "climategate" e-mails. anyone care to comment?

http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

thanks!

-eli

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3741101;search_string=smoking%20gun;#3741101

Anyone who has done any real scientific research knew that all along.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It's really simple, counselor. If you go to the trouble of doing the fieldwork, it's common courtesy that you get to look at the data, think about them, and analyze them before a competitor does. Once you publish in a peer reviewed journal the data should then be available to others.

This is the conflict. Take a look at pharmaceutical research. I long ago argued that before a pharmaceutical is approved all studies should be released - including the negative studies. Still, there is an argument of private ownership of those studies.

However, there are other things to look at. Let's say I get funding on a study and data supports that greenhouse gases detectibly decrease shortwave radiation albedo. I decide that I don't want this out there. I do not submit it for peer review.

The taxpayer says, "hey. What happened with that study?". I say, "nothing new.". They file an FOIA request. I slam the person as an alarmist chicken little harassing me.

It's possible. The FOIA is there to manage just this type of scenario. If the data hasn't been crunched, then I understand that. If it has, then it should be turned over. So should the code, etc.

These climate scientists are likely insulted by the challenging of their results. They are human. That's understandable. We are not interested in feelings. Data is important.

[Reply]As I wrote some time back, this is NOT the smoking gun all you deniers seem to think it is.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

If you go to the trouble of doing the fieldwork, it's common courtesy that you get to look at the data, think about them, and analyze them before a competitor does. Once you publish in a peer reviewed journal the data should then be available to others.

This is true but it certainly wasn't what you were trying to say when you said:

Quote

Great concept. I'd like a good look at our NSA's cryptography unit, to wander around inside our Area 51, and maybe catch a ride in one of our FA18s.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

What is your interest in stating that the data should be inaccessible? What are you interested in defending? I'm asking this to get your perspective.

Data shouldn't be inaccessible, but neither should it be available on demand until the researchers have analyzed it, verified it and are ready to present it. Do you make all your firm's working documents available on demand to anyone that wants to see them?

So they have not yet had time to do all this to 10 old data?

Crap, I forgot, they dumped it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

If you go to the trouble of doing the fieldwork, it's common courtesy that you get to look at the data, think about them, and analyze them before a competitor does. Once you publish in a peer reviewed journal the data should then be available to others.

This is true but it certainly wasn't what you were trying to say when you said:

Quote

Great concept. I'd like a good look at our NSA's cryptography unit, to wander around inside our Area 51, and maybe catch a ride in one of our FA18s.

Sorry, I guess I forgot the tag.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.