Barbarian observes:
Misrepresented. Both Factcheck and Politifact demonstrated that they were falsely represented by the people who stole them and by their supporters....
Misrepresented. The people who stole them claimed they said things that they did not. And when investigations brought this out, much excuse-making ensued.
Turns out, people have. And those who've put in the effort to learn about it, have found that the scientists were right. Notice that even Exxon has grudginly admitted that much.
The people who've actually read them all, have concluded the deniers lied about them.
It's hard to accept, perhaps. But that's what happened. You were suckered. And used. Sorry about that. I suppose you could switch from the "small coterie" story to the "massive conspiracy" fantasy.
More evidence is in the pipeline, and arriving daily. Want to see some more of it?
Climate change is being recognized as one of the most influential drivers of changes in biodiversity. This is particularly evident in the field of phenology, which looks at how climatic changes affecting timing of events in the natural world. Changes in the timing of one part of the ecosystem can have a ripple effect, disrupting other areas. For example, a change in timing of plant flowering can disrupt the creatures that pollinate them. Similarly, changes in timing of plant or insect behaviour can affect the birds that use them as food supplies. New research has been published stitching together nearly 400,000 first flowering records covering 405 species across the UK (Amano et al 2010). They've found that British plants are flowering earlier now than at any time in the last 250 years.
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
November 29th, 2011, 08:34 PM
Well, let's look at it, again...
Factcheck:
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
Analysis
Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate." Saudi Arabian climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban went so far as to tell the BBC: "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change." He said that he expected news of the e-mails to disrupt the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen this month. An article from the conservative-leaning Canada Free Press claims that the stolen files are proof of a "deliberate fraud" and "the greatest deception in history."
Missing the Mark
We find such claims to be far wide of the mark. The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. An investigation is being conducted by East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has "stepped aside" until it is completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy.
You can look at it as many times as you like and the Climategate emails will still be authentic and accurate and people will still read them and draw conclusions from them.
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
November 29th, 2011, 08:52 PM
Quote:
You can look at it as many times as you like and the Climategate emails will still be authentic and accurate and people will still read them and draw conclusions from them.
They did. And a thorough review by Factcheck, Politifact, the media, and several government agencies led each of them to conclude the accusations were false.
They did. And a thorough review by Factcheck, Politifact, the media, and several government agencies led each of them to conclude the accusations were false. Yep. Better luck next time.
They did. And there will be no Kyoto 2.0. On to the next crisis.
Slogan/motto:
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Reputation:
November 29th, 2011, 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
I just wanted to point out how you'd inadvertently mischaracterized what I'd said prior.
Ok, fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
I'd call it the vanguard.
A little like calling the Fascists the vanguard of the right. They might have some ideals that align, but it would be no more fair or accurate. Most movements have their extremists, and it's just plain wrong to treat all elements as the most extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
That you acknowledge we "will have" to take measures which won't be comfortable completely reinforces my position.
There's really nothing I can do about that, short of giving up and resigning to finding out what the worst case for climate change can be. The consequences, and the measures we have to take to avoid them are dictated by reality, not by any political ideology, and they will be less painful the sooner we start. If we ignore the problem long enough, the penalties will impose themselves in full force.
I'd love to be able to tell you that we can avoid the problem pain-free, but no one who seriously studies it seems to think that's true. That's not a matter of choice or preference, it's a matter of fact. However, ignoring the evidence, or picking which experts you listen to based on your political preferences, is a choice. I have reasons to believe what I do about climate change that have nothing to do with politics. Can you say the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
But there we have a problem. Scientists differ amongst themselves.
Yes. But very, very few of them actually believe there's no warming, or that we aren't causing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
1. We watched Hamlet today in class. Here's what he said:
Seems, madam! Nay, it is; I know not 'seems'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
2. Okay, I just wanted to establish that was your inference, not supportable by the information we had at hand.
I'd love to know what the point of the story was otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
I don't infer that at all. His main thesis is the political maneuvering behind claims of climate disaster.
Sure, that was his main thesis. But along the way, he told a story, one that wasn't really true, that was clearly intended to make the reader ask themselves if they can trust science when it says one thing one day and the opposite the next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
Do you think it exists?
Of course there's political maneuvering. And more from the people who say climate change isn't happening than anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
I'd like to know if any of them depend on grant money for their research budget, and whether they are under pressure to keep quiet when their research doesn't match prevailing disseminated information.
Most or all depend at least partially on grant money for the support of their research. Including those who don't really study climate change in any meaningful way. This is true of probably the majority of climate researchers. Most of the others work for universities, many of which are public institutions, or government departments, or even organizations supported by universities. And most of these people and organizations do contracts for governments. This is virtually universal in climate research, and not specifically research into climate change, and has been true for a long time. If there are large numbers of independent climate researchers out there, I don't know where they would be.
As for the question of pressure, I'll admit most of them haven't told me much about applying for grants, and there are only a small number who would likely have mentioned being pressured directly to me. But I can't imagine the people I know who do this kind of research wanting to be involved in anything where their conclusions are already decided for them. I also don't personally know anyone who has accepted a grant from Exxon or any of the industry associations for research, despite there being a lot of money available there.
Every grant is written with a purpose in mind, and a large number of them might presume that climate change is real because that is the consensus and they're looking for research to be done on a specific aspect. This isn't surprising or inappropriate. What is surprising is that the energy companies and the oil companies haven't managed to generate more of a real scientific controversy given how deep their pockets are and how evidently they wish to influence the science. That's where the money is. It's not in government grants from a government that is always trying to tighten its belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
If you'd prefer to do that via PM, that would be fine.
No need here. My concern is that I'd rather not post personal information about other people who aren't really public figures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annabenedetti
Lastly: you said we shouldn't complain about the politicization, I said "Actually, yes we should. When our national sovereignty will be affected by a global response, yes, we should. "
And you said:
So am I understanding you correctly? A loss of national sovereignty is inevitable, and we shouldn't complain about it?
I think the term "loss of national sovereignty" is hyperbolic scare-mongering. The fact is, we use treaties to address all sorts of issues that are far less urgent, such as intellectual property. No one talks about loss of sovereignty there.
This problem is far bigger than a national problem, and it can't be addressed effectively without international cooperation. If we regulate ourselves unilaterally, the dirtiest industries move overseas, and we do nothing but move the problem and harm our own economy.
Eternal life is an easy promise to make and a hard one to fulfill.
Last edited by rexlunae; November 29th, 2011 at 11:32 PM.
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
November 30th, 2011, 10:20 AM
Quote:
Ironically, that's what the emails revealed: the subordination of scientific truth to funding and politics.
See above, Bubba. Numerous governmental, news agency, and independent fact-checking investigations have concluded that those charges are false. You've been suckered by people who took advantage of your desire to believe.
Quote:
As for the scientific truth, nothing has been undone there. The scientists are free to continue their research.
You betcha. Vindication will do that, won't it? Next time, think for yourself.
Location: On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
Rep Power: 49591
Christian (Other)
Right Winger
Slogan/motto:
Overcome by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of your testimony; and love not your life unto death.
Reputation:
November 30th, 2011, 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler
Ironically, that's what the emails revealed: the subordination of scientific truth to funding and politics.
As for the scientific truth, nothing has been undone there. The scientists are free to continue their research.
It won't do any good.
He still thinks there was only one set of emails released, and the spin-doctors have already given him an explanation he can accept for those emails.
See above, Bubba. Numerous governmental, news agency, and independent fact-checking investigations have concluded that those charges are false. You've been suckered by people who took advantage of your desire to believe. You betcha. Vindication will do that, won't it? Next time, think for yourself.
Good for them. I'm sure they are all reducing their carbon footprint appropriately as we speak.
Those of us who think for ourselves have arrived at a different conclusion, which is why Kyoto is dead.
It won't do any good. He still thinks there was only one set of emails released, and the spin-doctors have already given him an explanation he can accept for those emails.
I have no illusions about changing his mind but it is amusing how studiously he avoids the substance of the emails even as he acknowledges their authenticity.
Barbie, are you aware that there was a second fact of emails released?
They suckered you on that, too. You see, carbon dioxide absorbs thermal energy at wavelengths not absorbed well by other greenhouse gases. That means that the thermal energy at those wavelengths is being retained at higher rates than before, with the expected consequence; more atmospheric warming.
You're perhaps thinking of former denier Richard Lindzen...
Here's the satellite data, along with the actual surface temperature data:
Hard to tell the difference, um? One satellite data set has warming a tiny bit less than the surface measurements. The other has it a tiny bit more. Someone's taken you down the garden path.
Surprise.
No that isn't what I was referring too.. But on that line using data points that don't qualify anymore because they are too close to manmade objects like.. Tennis courts thus creating an island effect of heat has you all deluded.
I was referring to the fact that the rate of heat loss into space is in a liner graph with the rising temps that happened during the 80's and 90's thus it wasn't because heat was being trapped that the temp rose it was because the sun was hotter..DUH.. if the heat loss was less then guess what you could say, "that it was because of that pesky 37 one thousandth of a percent of that darn evil CO2..
But it isn't and global climate changes is just an "extraordinary popular delusion".. There have been many throughout history as humans are very gullible. There is a great book on it by the same name..
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
November 30th, 2011, 04:16 PM
(Barbarian observes that widely divergent news organizations, government agencies, and fact checking groups looked into the "climategate" accusations and found them to be false)
Quote:
Good for them. I'm sure they are all reducing their carbon footprint appropriately as we speak.
As I predicted, when the facts were delivered, the message shifted to "they are all liars." Apparently, everyone is a liar but the deniers who made the false accusations.
Quote:
Those of us who think for ourselves
C'mon, Bubba, you fell for that story, because they told you what you wanted to hear. Now that the truth is out, you're trying to spin you way out of it.
(Barbarian observes that widely divergent news organizations, government agencies, and fact checking groups looked into the "climategate" accusations and found them to be false) As I predicted, when the facts were delivered, the message shifted to "they are all liars." Apparently, everyone is a liar but the deniers who made the false accusations. C'mon, Bubba, you fell for that story, because they told you what you wanted to hear. Now that the truth is out, you're trying to spin you way out of it.
I realize that you have had difficulty with logic and truth in the past, but, really, how exactly did you get from "I'm sure they are all reducing their carbon footprint appropriately as we speak" to "they are all liars"?
I suppose that's a rhetorical question, though.
In any case, now that the emails have been revealed the politics of warmism is pretty much dead and we will see where the science goes from here.
Linear Mode
