backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on Nov 30 at 5:57 PM


  (Source: Sodahead)
Full emails show inarguably the researchers fought transparency, to keep public in the dark

Some commenters on our recent article on the snippets of the alleged "Climategate 2.0" emails -- leaked correspondences between U.S. and UN researchers with officials at the UK University of East Anglia's embattled Climate Research Unit (CRU) --  complained that the commentary was too biased or misleading.  That's not suprising -- similar criticism has been leveled against reports on the topic in ForbesThe New York Times, and other top publications.  

And there is at least one fair point in most of these criticisms.  Thus far very few major news publications have published full emails so it's been left for the readers to blindly decide whether to trust reporters who imply the emails are disturbing and those who claim they're innocent.  While we won't possibly have the chance to review all the emails, here's an in depth review of at least one of the more important email threads -- something readers elsewhere have deserved, but haven't received.

I. Background

Many climate skepticism-leaning reports fell for the trap of searching for the "gotcha" quotes, quotes which would seemingly amount to climatologists admitting they don't believe their anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to be true.  One such commonly printed quote (which our original piece did not include) was CRU director Phil Jones commenting, "All models are wrong."

In reality this quote was almost certainly taken out of context; he was referring to his disbelief in new studies which simply averaged existing models -- something that doesn't speak to his belief or disbelief in the original models themselves.

On the other hand, what our coverage focused on was the more troubling excerpts, which seem to imply that researchers purposefully deleted emails "to cover" themselves from public scrutiny of their work and research practices.  If true, it's clear these allegations are troubling.  Thus we selected email thread 2240, one of the most pertinent emails on this particularly important issue.

House of Secrets
Were top climatologists purposefully building a "house of secrets"?  
Read for yourself and find out. [Image Source: DC Comics]

College researchers in standard disciplines rely on data gathered first hand from their experiments.  Climatologists, on the other hand primarily collate data gathered by government research agencies.  As this gathering is directly performed by a public institution, funded by public dollars, many agree that this information should be free to the public to analyze, should they wish to do so.

Indeed this email thread makes reference to a couple of documents -- WMO 40 and the "Arhus Resolution -- which seem to demand for a sharing of metrology and similar data.

WMO 40 refers to the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) fortieth resolution, which states:

The Twelfth World Meteorological Congress in June 1995, recognizing the increasing requirement for the global exchange of all types of environmental data and the basic responsibility of WMO Members and their national Meteorological Services in support of safety, security and economic benefits of their countries, adopted the following policy on the international exchange of meteorological and related data and products:

As a fundamental principle of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and in consonance with the expanding requirements for its scientific and technical expertise, WMO commits itself to broadening and enhancing the free and unrestricted international exchange of meteorological and related data and products.

The Congress also adopted a new practice designed to strengthen the exchange of meteorological and related data and products, and urged Members to increase the volume of data and products exchanged.

[full text]

The Århus (or Aarhus) Convention/Resolution [PDF] was a UN convention held in the titular Danish city in 1998.  It resulted in a multi-national pledge (the Århus Resolution) to share any information with the public.  According to public documents, this sharing "is founded on the belief that citizens’ involvement can strengthen democracy and environmental protection."

The document explicitly suggests that the public has the tendency to mistrust environmental regulation and that Århus was designed to prevent that.

"AR" in the context of this email refers to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (UN IPCC) "Assessment Report".  So the AR5 is the fifth assessment report on climate change, AR4 is the fourth report, and so on.

TSU stands for "Technical Support Unit" of the IPCC Working Group, which handles -- as part of its responsibilities -- public interaction.

II. The Email Thread (2240 in the archive [torrent])

cc: "Midgley, Pauline" <midgley@ipcc.unibe.ch>
date: Wed Jun 24 13:23:15 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Data access and IPCC
to: Thomas Stocker <stocker@climate.unibe.ch>, wg1 <wg1@ipcc.unibe.ch>
 
    Dear Thomas,
        Attached is a document that you should only bother to look at it you have
    time to spare - stuck on a train or long flight. It is a submission by a skeptic
    to EPA in the USA.
       I'm sending it only for background. I wouldn't want this issue to be raised
    at the Venice meeting, but I think you'll likely to become more aware these people as
    AR5 advances. I was in Boulder last week and I spoke to Susan. We agreed
    that the only way IPCC can work is the collegiate way it did with AR4.
       These people know they are losing (or have lost) on the science. They are now
    going for the process. All you need to do is to make sure all in AR5 are aware
    of the process and that they adhere to it. We all did with AR4, but these people
    read much more into the IPCC procedures.
     See you in Venice
    Phil
 
   At 17:17 13/05/2009, Thomas Stocker wrote:
 
     Dear Phil (cc to Pauline Midgley, Head TSU WGI)
     Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I knew about this when the first
     requests were placed on John Mitchell and Keith Briffa and they informed us. What I did
     not know is that they have already placed their focus on Bern (# 17)!
     At that time I argued that in principle there are two interests to balance: (i) FOI, and
     (ii) your own privacy when it comes to opening emails or other mail. Obviously, I am not
     in the position to judge which one obtains and in fact I think a court would be needed
     to establish exactly that balance.
     However, the Arhus Resolution, it seems to me, had another motivation: open access to
     environmental data associated with damage, spills, pollution; the latter word is
     mentioned twice - "climate" never. So to take this convention and turn it around appears
     to me like a perversion.
     One important point to consider is whether Arhus really applies to the IPCC activities.
     In no way are we involved in decision making. We assess and provide scientific
     information. The decision makers are elsewhere. More than ever need we be aware of this
     separation!
     We will discuss this in the TSU but then, this should be brought to the level of the
     Secretariat, at least, since it affects the very basis of our assessment work.
     Thanks again and best regards,
     Thomas
     Phil Jones wrote:
 
      Dear Thomas,
 
            I hope you are enjoying your new job!  Apologies in advance
      for upsetting your morning!
         Below there is a link to Climate Audit and their new thread with another
      attempt to gain access to the CRU station temperature data. I wouldn't
      normally bother about this - but will deal with the FOI requests when they
      come.  Despite WMO Resolution 40, I've signed agreements not to pass on
      some parts of the CRU land station data to third parties.
         If you click on the link below and then on comments, look at # 17. This
      refers to a number of appeals a Brit has made to the Information Commissioner
      in the UK. You can see various UK Universities and MOHC listed. For UEA these
      relate to who changed what and why in Ch 6 of AR4. We are dealing with these,
      but I wanted to alert you to few sentences about Switzerland, your University
      and AR5.
          Having been through numerous of these as a result of AR4, I suspect that
      someone will have a go at you at some point. What I think they might try later
      is the same issue:
        Who changed what and why in various chapters of AR5?
        and
        When drafts of chapters come for AR5, we can't review the chapter as we
      can't get access to the data, or, the authors can't refer to these papers as the data
      haven't been made available for audit.
        Neither of these is what I would call Environmental Information,as defined by the
     Aarhus Convention.
        You might want to check with the IPCC Bureau. I've been told that IPCC is
      above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5
      would be to delete all emails at the end of the process. Hard to do, as not everybody
      will remember to do it.
        I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin to affect people's
      lives, we are all going to get more of this. We can cope with op-ed pieces, but these
      FOI requests take time, as the whole process of how we all work has to be explained
      to FOI-responsible people at each institution.
        Keep up the good work with AR5!
      Cheers
      Phil
 
     Dear Mr Jones
     As a UK tax payer from the productive economy, could you please explain why you restrict
     access to data sets that are gathered using tax payer funds e.g. CRUTEM3. Can you
     believe how embarassing this is to a UK TAX PAYER, putting up with your amateurish non
     disclosure of enviromental information.
     For reference [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5962 refers to your absymal attitude to
     public data, although this is just the latest in an embarassing set of reasonable
     requests from  CRU, who the hell do you think you are? There will of course be an FOI on
     the back of this
     Regards
     Ian
 
     Prof. Phil Jones
     Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
     School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
     University of East Anglia
     Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
     NR4 7TJ
     UK
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
     --
     ------------------------------------------------------------------
     Thomas Stocker
     Climate and Environmental Physics         stocker@climate.unibe.ch
     Physics Institute, University of Bern        ph:  +41 31 631 44 62
     Sidlerstrasse 5                              fx:  +41 31 631 87 42
     3012 Bern, Switzerland                [2]www.climate.unibe.ch/stocker
     ------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   Prof. Phil Jones
   Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
   School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
   NR4 7TJ
   UK
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis

Governments of free nations, as a most fundamental principle are meant to be protecting their citizens' well being.  At times the argument can be made that this means that some state secrets must be kept from the public in order to protect it.  But it's hard to make the argument of concealing government information to protect government officials at the expense of the public well-being.

The above email isn't as outright damning as the individual cherry picked quote:

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.  Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.  I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

...suggests.  That said, the full email, in context, inarguably demonstrates that at least some of the researchers involved in climatology are looking to hide what they're doing from the public.

On the one hand it's important to understand a couple of contextual points.  First, researchers have only very recent received interest in the public from receiving their data sets, much less their emails.  Second, climatologists supporting AGW theory have been receiving a firestorm of criticism and scrutiny that may put some in defense mode.  

Why is there such scrutiny?

Professor Jones said it himself:

I also suspect that as national measures to reduce emissions begin to affect people's lives, we are all going to get more of this.

Indeed, citizens of the world have a legitimate right -- if not duty -- to scrutinize climatology and warming science as in it is intimately and inexorably tied to politicial decisions that effect their lives, as the IPCC acts both as scientific reporter and policy maker.  The most sweeping of the potential decisions, such as "carbon taxes", quotas on energy use, and meat rationing could quite literally force people in America and abroad to give up the comforts they enjoy today.

With that in mind, this email is arguably very troubling.  Remember, Phil Jones is suggesting exactly what the excerpted comment seemingly suggests on a most basic level -- that climate researchers destroy their emails to hide their interactions from the public.

Remember these are not personal email accounts, they are professional ones.  As the taxpayers are essentially "the head boss" of taxpayer-funded research institutions.  In that regard Professor Jones' suggestions read like a manager telling a fellow manager to delete their emails to cover up their interactions from corporate human resource folks.  

In cases like these the people involved -- Phil Jones and Thomas Stocker -- look guilty based on their actions.  As Emily Bronte wrote, "Honest people don't hide their deeds."

Thomas Stocker and Phil Jones
Thomas Stocker (left) and Phil Jones (right) have only themselves to blame for creating the appearance of improprietary by fighting to keep their conversations out of the eyes of the public, who are essentially paying their bills via taxes.
[Image Sources: Thomas Stocker (left), Chris Bourchier / Rex Features (right)]

Or in the words of the Århus Convention's report:

There is currently a perceived lack of trust between people and their governments, especially where environmental matters are concerned.  The Århus Convention is seen as an important tool for improving this situation. It is founded on the belief that citizens’ involvement can strengthen democracy and environmental protection.

Sounds like good advice -- advice Phil Jones and Thomas Stocker are doing their best not to follow.  Mr. Stocker's claim that global warming isn't an "environmental issue" is particularly laughable, given how much many AGW proponents at the IPCC and elsewhere warn of catastrophic global warming-induced weather changes.

Climatologists have put themselves in this sticky predicament.  Whether or not they were dishonest, their desire to hide their actions has made them appear dishonest in the public eye.

That was exactly our point in the previous piece, in which we wrote:

Of course Phil Jones and his supporters will likely claim that the emails were taken out of context of some larger more appropriate discussion.  But as a researcher it's pretty damning to make comments that even would seem to imply that you were engaging in trying to suppress peer review of questionable data -- academic fraud.

Particularly trouble is the phrase "cover yourself", which suggest a conspiratorial, political undertone to what is supposed to be a transparent field of research.

Our report wasn't perfect, but it got the most important point right.  The climate emails, if authentic, inarguably prove Phil Jones and a handful of other climatologists plotted to keep their professional actions out of the public eye.  And that's a big concern, no matter how much denial and nay-saying goes on about the more egregious out-of-context quotes from the emails.

After all, if there were truly damning quotes in the emails, they likely wouldn't be in the leaked trove.  Where would they be?  Consider Professor Jones' own suggestion -- "One way to cover yourself would be ... to delete all emails."

That's one quote that's not taken out of context.

Source: Emails [torrent]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

scientists are lazy/busy people too
By ptmmac on 11/27/2011 10:54:39 PM , Rating: 1
If my understanding of this is correct it sounds like the scientists are tired of explaining all their work to outsiders. No it is not democratic but it sure is easier for the administrator or scientist involved. I did not spend a lot of time reading this, but it seems only sinister if you were already looking for things to complain about. The basic thesis that Co2 causes warming looks pretty easy to accept. The actual prediction of how much warming is really impossible for any one to answer properly. You can only give an estimate and stand by it. Are we listening to a weather forecast or science? The correct answer is both. I would have to say that the results of warming are hard to accept when the cost is so high. This is of course what the scientists are worried about... how much interference they will encounter when the actual cost of reducing Global Co2 is felt by the man on the street. This does not change either the high cost of not acting or the magnitude of the dangerous results that may be caused by Global Warming. We are listening to a warning of a large Hurricane from before radar tracking or computer models were as accurate as they currently are. What should we do? Should we evacuate, or ride it out? In the main, I suspect we really don't have a choice. We will ride it out with as much preparation as we can afford. The long term solution is a commercial version of photosynthesis that produces refinery feed stocks. The solution is not attacking the forecasters for inconveniencing our lives. The short term solution is hard. Reduce energy usage, find new sources of energy and adapting our current sources to be less harmful. The really stupid part of all this is that we will have a more stable global economy if find new energy sources. No one is against this part. Do we really have to fight over whether we need to do this?




RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Proton on 11/28/2011 12:22:31 AM , Rating: 5
All Willis Eschenbach wanted was a simple list of what stations were used.
He explains it well here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/an-open-lett...


By BBeltrami on 11/28/2011 1:49:45 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for the link. The letter is notable in that it's level-headed, not overwrought, and does a good job of explaining in a reasonable, logical and specific manner.

I want to give credit where it's due. Jason came to DT as a foil to Masher's stance questioning AGW. If Jason has figured out that something's rotten, there may yet be hope.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Amiga500 on 11/28/2011 6:57:53 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If my understanding of this is correct it sounds like the scientists are tired of explaining all their work to outsiders.


Sorry, but that is absolute pish.

The models should be explained within their technical papers.

All they have to do is make the papers available online, and the data available online. Then anyone and everyone can scrutinise both models and data and the 'scientists' don't have to personally respond to every request for information. Since the various institutions share data, they will already have the information in convenient format.

Note, I use 'scientists' as they are currently acting nothing like what good scientists should. I worked in academic research and now in industrial research (albeit in engineering); hiding data is not good science.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By MonkeyPaw on 11/28/2011 9:50:40 AM , Rating: 5
Not only that, but publishing your research is part of the scientific process. At least that's what I remember from college. After all, a scientific theory doesn't necessarily mean that's the truth, it's just a very well-tested explanation, which can still be proven or disproven with more research. You follow the rules for real understanding, not so you can keep getting government grants.


By JediJeb on 11/28/2011 6:58:19 PM , Rating: 3
I concur. When I was working on my thesis I had to include all data for every experimental run we did, even when it was just the same thing over and over or the ones that failed miserably. Writing it would have been very easy if I only included the data that advanced the research, but going the long route and showing everything allows those who may follow to avoid the same mistakes if they want to take the work further. Including all the data also reduces any skepticism that the work was falsified or "cherry picked" to give the desired results.

A good scientist is not afraid to show all their data even if it could disprove their theory.


By invidious on 11/28/2011 9:26:49 AM , Rating: 5
If their work can't stand on its own then it isn't good work. Either these scientsist are incompetant and should lose their funding or are fraudulent and should be sued/imprisoned. They shouldn't try to publish garbage if they don't want people to question and criticize them.

Maybe start drawing conclusions from facts instead of from whose funding they stand to lose and being open about the process and data that support those conclusions.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Dr of crap on 11/28/2011 12:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
"... forecasters for inconveniencing our lives. The short term solution is hard. Reduce energy usage, find new sources of energy and adapting our current sources to be less harmful."

You have it right - forecasters. And that means it's an educated guess. Why do you find it so easy to believe them, while a lot do not believe it?

While I am not against looking for new energy alternatives, going with the carbon credits, and all the costs we would put on our selfs is rediculious.
A vast majority will NOT change to satisfy the forcasters and the wishes of the govt that want to be in the forefront of "fighting" this thing. And why the govt wants to be in the lead I do not understand!


By JediJeb on 11/28/2011 7:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
going with the carbon credits, and all the costs we would put on our selfs is rediculious.


Exactly! What does it do to help the environment if the trading of carbon credits is allowed? It would reward both the one who is efficient who would have more credits than they need, and also reward the inefficient by allowing them a way to get around having to become more efficient. In the end if there is a large pool of carbon credits sitting around to be purchased, then whoever did the estimates on the amount of carbon emitted by each facility did a poor job. Also why should there be any monetary aspect to them? Any unused allowance should return to the government books and if any company exceeds their allowance they are simply credited those as needed. If in the end there is no excess then fines are issued as they should be. Allowing companies to buy their way out of the hole is just wrong, especially when some private company is laughing all the way to the bank.

When I was growing up there was a similar situation going on with the Tobacco Quotas. Each farmer was allotted so many pounds they could sell each year. If one had grown too much and another came up short, they worked out a deal to sell their overage on the other person's quota, which was also very illegal. These carbon credits only amount to a legal way for a third party to make money brokering a similar deal for quota sharing. The only winner in the situation is the third party. The environment and the government both lose out on the deal, as well as the public.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Reclaimer77 on 11/28/2011 3:02:20 PM , Rating: 5
Nice solid block of text. Apparently scientists AND web posters are "lazy". Ever heard of a paragraph?

quote:
The basic thesis that Co2 causes warming looks pretty easy to accept.


Except C02 has risen by about 25% and there have been no permanent, or even long lasting, warming trends or other affects during that time. How can something supposedly directly related to global temperatures rise in such massive numbers without an equally or even clearly measurable consequence?

Who were the two idiots who actually read your jumbled block of meandering thoughts, weak ass pseudo-intellectual attempts, and other non-seqitor and thought it was a good idea to click "worth reading"? That's what I wanna know.

The scientists are "tired" of explaining their work? Wtf kind of apologist crap is that! Your mindset is not only dangerous but, if adopted en-mass, would cause long lasting negative consequences for science en-total!


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Reclaimer77 on 11/28/2011 3:46:00 PM , Rating: 3
Also in prehistoric times C02 levels were TWENTY times higher. 20! If AWG theory was correct Earth would have been a runaway greenhouse, no abundant life would have been possible and the planet would have been a desert. Instead plant and animal life exploded and there was no global warming issue.

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_ti...

Looks like, unlike climate scientists, geologists are NOT "lazy".


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Smilin on 11/29/2011 10:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
Your link is referring to a time between the Paleocene and Eocene epochs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Ther...

During this time ocean PH levels dropped drastically, and the earth warmed some 5-6 celcius in just 5k years. It took about 100k years for things to return to their previous state.

quote:
If AWG theory was correct Earth would have been a runaway greenhouse, no abundant life would have been possible and the planet would have been a desert
This seems a hyperbolic overstatement not supported by evidence.

quote:
Instead plant and animal life exploded and there was no global warming issue.


This seems contrary to evidence. There was a mass extinction event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic-Jurassic_ext...

quote:
Looks like, unlike climate scientists, geologists are NOT "lazy".


No, I think armchair internet climatologists like all of us are lazy. You're posting cherries and I'm quoting from wikipedia instead of finding the original sources. Funny how we don't debate the findings of any other group of scientists.

I for one actually believe we are indeed in a small 'natural cycle' We'll crap greenhouse gasses until we extinct ourselves and most other carbon producing life. What carbon consuming life remains will thrive. This tiny cycle will be part of larger ones and the earth will move on happily without us.

Good thing we all evolved some frontal lobes to allow us to break such a cycle that would have obliterated previous species...the bad news is we also have some abberation in our species that causes portions of it to recoil from unpleasant knowledge...so we might be screwed after all. Thanks deniers.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Reclaimer77 on 11/29/2011 11:18:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good thing we all evolved some frontal lobes to allow us to break such a cycle that would have obliterated previous species...the bad news is we also have some abberation in our species that causes portions of it to recoil from unpleasant knowledge...so we might be screwed after all. Thanks deniers.


No I think if you just go along with anything regardless of evidence or proof, YOU are not using your frontal lobe. You act as if we're "denying" facts, sorry, there are no facts here as of yet. Only correlation without cause.

Sorry but the fact is we're not headed for some runaway extinction level event. Even in this link you provided, climate was ruled an "unlikely" cause of the extinction event. I believe the leading theory is "huge asteroid" anyway, which last I checked, wasn't man made.

All your doing is muddying the issue. I state again, if CO2 is a direct driver of global temperatures and a poison, how can life thrive on Earth with 20 times the Co2 in the atmosphere as there is today.

quote:
We'll crap greenhouse gasses until we extinct ourselves


LOL alarmist doomsaying at it's finest.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Smilin on 11/29/2011 1:18:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Blah blah blah...I lack technical reading skills blah blah


I made a distinction between my unsubstantiated opinion in the latter half of my post and the earlier *facts* (both sides agree on this data.).

You also seem to be confusing this with the extinction event involving dinosaurs. So "last time you checked" was in the wrong place.

Finally... WTF do you mean how did life thrive on Earth with 20 times the Co2? Um buddy...we didn't start out with an oxygen rich atmosphere. The oxygen you breath today was generated from...life (see cyanobacteria). Irony: Deniers breath this same oxygen then use their breath to talk about how impossible it is for an organism to have such an impact.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Reclaimer77 on 11/29/2011 5:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Finally... WTF do you mean how did life thrive on Earth with 20 times the Co2? Um buddy...we didn't start out with an oxygen rich atmosphere.


Are you stupid? There was massive plant and animal life, and moderate temperatures, on Earth during the times of massive CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. This directly contradicts the modern-day theory that CO2 is a temperature "driver" and high levels will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Hello?

Why are we even arguing? If I was a nutjob "denier" and this was already accepted science, it should be as easy for you to prove me wrong as it is proving gravity. So please, by all means, show me the proof that AWG is real and that it's a threat to our way of life. Prove to me that any "warming trend" is unnatural and man made. Where's the proof? Not evidence, but PROOF!


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Smilin on 11/29/2011 5:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you stupid? There was massive plant and animal life, and moderate temperatures, on Earth during the times of massive CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. This directly contradicts the modern-day theory that CO2 is a temperature "driver" and high levels will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. Hello?


Plant and animal life means what? Is that a thermometer? We've got plant and animal life from the arctic to the equator and even down to volcanic thermal vents. WTF does the existence of this life say about a correlation between GHG and atmospheric temperature?

quote:
Why are we even arguing? If I was a nutjob "denier" and this was already accepted science, it should be as easy for you to prove me wrong as it is proving gravity. So please, by all means, show me the proof that AWG is real and that it's a threat to our way of life. Prove to me that any "warming trend" is unnatural and man made. Where's the proof? Not evidence, but PROOF!


1. There is no "proof" in science.
2. Not even the theory gravity has been proven (don't f'ing start)
3. You're a nutjob.

Copy/Paste for ya..

"There is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this."


The big question for you (you've got an opportunity to dispell your nutbaggery with a reasonable and rational answer)...

What "Proof" would convince you? Be specific.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Reclaimer77 on 11/29/2011 6:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plant and animal life means what? Is that a thermometer? We've got plant and animal life from the arctic to the equator and even down to volcanic thermal vents. WTF does the existence of this life say about a correlation between GHG and atmospheric temperature?


Are you an idiot? How many times do I have to explain the relevance to you? Maybe someone else can do it better than me:

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.


If 20 times the CO2 levels as we have today didn't produce the result that AGW claims will happen when CO2 levels rise, THE THEORY IS WRONG!


By Smilin on 11/30/2011 1:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
You dodged my boldfaced question. Should I have screamed in caps? Called you an idiot? You seem angry, defensive, and irrational. Just an observation.

quote:
If 20 times the CO2 levels as we have today didn't produce the result that AGW claims will happen when CO2 levels rise, THE THEORY IS WRONG!


Despite your asshattery I'll entertain the above. Deniers claim (rightly) that there are other factors contributing to the earths temperature.
Name the others during the timespan you are mentioning. (don't conveniently try to dismiss other factors when they may undermine your point while simultaneously trying to bolster them)

That graph you linked to shows the 20x today concentrations during the precambrian era! You realize that is near the formation of the earth when our Atmosphere was full of CO2, had no oxygen (other than that bound to H2). The dominant life on the planet was cyanobacteria which thrived in CO2 and gave us most of the atmosphere we have today. WTF.

How about you answer my question now?


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By JediJeb on 11/29/2011 12:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I for one actually believe we are indeed in a small 'natural cycle' We'll crap greenhouse gasses until we extinct ourselves and most other carbon producing life. What carbon consuming life remains will thrive. This tiny cycle will be part of larger ones and the earth will move on happily without us.


The thing is we are a carbon consuming life form, probably more than a carbon producing life form. Even vegans are consuming carbon unless they have found a way to live without protein, fat, carbohydrates and amino acids. Now maybe our respiration cycle produces some carbon, but not that much overall.

I think what you are referring to would be that we produce carbon through our industry and living practices, but even then we only change the form of the carbon since there is the same amount of carbon on the planet now as there was 1 billion years ago, well except for the tiny amount that may have been added by a few major impacts from carbon containing asteroids and comets. If CO2 was constantly sequestered by plants taking it in and then being covered over by inorganic matter turning it into coal and oil, then eventually all life on the planet would die when the CO2 has been removed from the atmosphere. But think about it, if all of our industry and burning fossil fuels has caused a 20% increase in CO2 in the time since we began to do such things, what process happened back in the past to make CO2 levels 2000% higher than they are now? We really should be more worried about what nature can do to destroy life on Earth than what man can do. In all honesty what we might do would only end up being an inconvenience compared to what some natural events could do. If the prediction made in the 1970's of a coming Ice Age had come true(based on most of the same data that is now being used to promote a coming Melt Down)would we have been better off or worse off than rising temperatures?


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Smilin on 11/29/2011 1:40:39 PM , Rating: 1
An average human will consume 150lbs of carbon net...that's how much they weigh when they die. Everything else biologically is taking existing carbon produced from other organisms and expending it as energy. That's where we diverge from other species...

Other carbon emitting organisms, pound for pound, do nothing like we do. Bacteria don't dig up oil from the ground to make shampoo bottles nor do they dig up coal to burn in coke factories to melt thousands of pounds of ore just to make a thing that burns more oil to get you somewhere. All (aerobic) bacteria do is inhale, expend energy to stay alive then exhale.

Our atmosphere has been altered by other species in the past. It's folly to think we can't do the same. They took an order of magnitude longer but we are making an impact -many- orders of magnitude higher. As for other natural events: No point in worrying about what you can't change. If we get an asteroid or unheard of volcanic events we might be screwed. Meh.

BTW:
The prediction in the 70s had about as much consensus as belief in UFOs (less really...but thats more of a testament to the nuttery of UFO believers). The prediction amounted ot a book and a couple articles. There was no widespread consensus involving thousands of researchers and publications. It's a silly comparison that deniers like to bring up. Be better than that.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Reclaimer77 on 11/29/2011 5:09:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There was no widespread consensus involving thousands of researchers and publications.


Since when did science become a popularity contest? It used to be scientific consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe, fyi.

Reality check: There is NO scientific consensus that AGW is real. This is a silly thing that you alarmists bring up. Even if there was a universal consensus among scientists, consensus is not evidence of proof. As far back as 2008 this so-called "consensus" was called out.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.htm...


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By Smilin on 11/29/2011 6:15:58 PM , Rating: 1
No. It's not a popularity contest.

"If I were wrong, it would only have taken one."
--Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

As with every other "climategate" a cherry picked ad hominem gives no evidence about the matter at hand.

The following are in agreement about AGW (and as Einstein implied...if they are all wrong then it would only take a single individual to disprove them...example: gravity can never be 100% proven but a single upward falling object would disprove it):

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

If that is not consensus then what is? (not a rhetorical...give me an answer)


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By JediJeb on 11/29/2011 6:34:04 PM , Rating: 3
Seems there was an article here not that long ago about a very noteworthy Physicist that was a member of the AIP you have listed there that not only disagreed with AGW but was working with other members on a study to confirm or disprove it. He then made a very public resignation from the AIP because they denied the request to allow the members of that group to post findings or even use the AIP's organizational tool to collaborate on such a work.

If you look within many of those organizations listed there you will find many within them that do not agree with the "consensus" of their groups. Most of these scientific groups are so closely tied to government that their official stance follows very closely to what the accepted stance is, regardless of whether or not there is hard facts to back it up. These agencies live on funding, and most funding comes from the government. One of the reasons that I have never joined the American Chemical Society even though I have been a chemist for 20 years. They are more devoted to government and commercial interests now than pure scientific research.


By Smilin on 11/30/2011 5:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
You raise an excellent and valid point. It's something I questioned myself. Found this:

quote:
This is a fair point. Group position statements are designed to present a united front. The best indicator of what individual scientists think is in the current scientific literature, where new and different is the paramount value and scientists are free to express their own ideas, as long as they're supported by data and logic. What does the literature look like in terms of the climate debate? Sounds like a good topic for research.

Naomi Oreskes took on just this topic. She did an ISI database search with the keyword phrase "global climate change," and then surveyed those resulting abstracts published between 1993 and 2003 in refereed scientific journals. There were 928.

She then divided the papers into six categories:
1.explicit endorsement of the consensus position,
2.evaluation of impacts,
3.mitigation proposals,
4.methods,
5.paleoclimate analysis, and
6.rejection of the consensus position.

The details can be read here. Oreskes' key finding is that none of the papers fell into the last category, while 75% fell into the first three. This is a surprisingly robust consensus of opinion, especially considering that the start date was a full two years before the 1995 IPCC report, eight years before the more recent 2001 report.

A lot has happened since then, and none of it casts any doubt on the finding that the world is warming and it is primarily due to human actions.


The "can be read here" link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.fu...

I remember that guy you are speaking of. I agree with him on his main point: Nothing in science is *ever* complete and indisputable. Gravity is my favorite example. Say there is a wide body of evidence. Say there is a large consensus. Just don't say that things are a indisputable fact. We could find tomorrow that, "Hey after Johnny stopped eating beans global warming reversed." In the meantime though we can't ignore what we've already found.


RE: scientists are lazy/busy people too
By ptmmac on 11/29/2011 12:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
Any attempt to call this science with out referencing the politics in the room is just silly. I am not claiming that what they have done is admirable. I am just trying to summarize what I believe they are doing.

If they are flat out lying about how they have created their models then they deserve every bit of your scorn. The over all context is what you and I differing on. How many other scientists have come to the same conclusion, and what were the probabilities that their work is correct? I can't honestly tell you that I know this. I do, however, believe that majority of the people in this field of research are convinced of Global Warming. Have all of these scientists faked all of their work, or has someone cherry picked an incriminating email from the most political of researchers out there? The later choice is what this sounds like to me.

As far as the Global Warming theory all being some sort of conspiracy, well I guess my doubts about Oil companies being unable to defend themselves are showing. It is certainly possible that almost all ecologists are more interested in puffing up the importance of their field of research then telling the truth or are delusional. I just wonder how they are getting away with it especially given the number of self interested companies and powerful individuals who they are fighting against.

Answers to some of your other questions in no apparent order: I am lazy just like the title implied. The 25% rise in Co2 is very recent in Geologic terms. I hate the lack of indentation in web posting software, and usually don't use paragraphs as much as I should. Thanks for the pointer. Last time I checked there were 4 people who clicked on it to approve of it.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/29/2011 1:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
Well it's kind of hard to verify the methodology of their models when they have flat out REFUSED to share that data and explain how they came up with them. Scrutiny is a key component to verifying scientific theories, but apparently people have been "convinced" to think otherwise. After all, getting a steady paycheck can be very convincing.

People like you I don't get. When you believe in something to the point that you refuse to accept questions or even acknowledge realities, it's not science you speak of. It then becomes religion. When you set out to prove a conclusion no matter what the un-massaged data says, instead of letting the data speak for itself regardless, it's not science anymore.

I see this term being used against people like me creeping up more and more; denialists. Excuse me, but that sounds awfully like what you would call someone who doesn't believe in your god. Substitute denialist for heretic and there you have it. But you cannot "deny" good, solid, self evident science.

quote:
I do, however, believe that majority of the people in this field of research are convinced of Global Warming.


You mean the field that barely existed until a short time ago and has seen explosive growth and funding, all because of this theory? Well color me shocked! In fact if you read between the lines and pay attention, there's a major rift forming between Climatologists and the rest of the scientific community. Scientists are becoming quite put off by the methods and lack of transparency used by these Climatologists.

By the way, the "majority" lie that's been repeated on this is just that. Over 31,000 scientists and have signed a petition of disagreement with AWG theory. That's over 10 times as many from the polling that everyone is basing this "majority consensus" on. There is NO majority of scientists in agreement with AWG. Only a majority in agreement on that one cherry picked poll.

Fact is AWG is just way too controversial to base economic and social policies on at this time. And it's getting more controversial by the year as more and more cracks appear in it's once unbreakable fascia. You can spin these controversies and e-mail scandals anyway you like. Frankly I think you're being incredibly naive and deliberately obtuse.


More BS
By cactusdog on 11/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: More BS
By cactusdog on 11/27/2011 9:39:53 PM , Rating: 5
Heres the link that answers this BS directly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo&feature...


RE: More BS
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2011 9:56:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:

Heres the link that answers this BS directly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo&feature...

From your video:
quote:
I thought this time the salesman would have a different approach, you know show the whole email, show what it's about... ah but no.

Ha, nice, but that's not what I do here. I analyze the FULL email and put it in context. I even provide what's arguably the best contextual defense of why Phil Jones said what he did.

I'm not trying any magic tricks here. I'm putting things in the full context and discussing why there's still troublesome.

Sure other people might be doing what your video accuses, but suggesting my report here is doing so is quite disingenuous in my opinion.


RE: More BS
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2011 10:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
I should also add that your video friend showed the excerpted quote from this email, but conveniently failed to put THAT one in context.

Isn't he essentially doing the same thing he's accusing media writers of?

Isn't he elaborating on some text and not others and then showing quotes as if all of the text follows the same pattern?


RE: More BS
By michael67 on 11/28/2011 12:07:45 AM , Rating: 1
Man Jason seriously, get a life !!!!

Have you ever heard of the term Confirmation bias?
Your a classic case.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Con...

On both sides there are extremist, that wont let inconvenient fact or even a promising theory get in there point of view.

And you now in my book, your now a official honorary staff member of FOX-news!
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/12/fox-ne...

Your now like a capitalist standing in front of wall street, shouting that capitalism is a good thing!
Neither the people of Wall street or occupied are gone changing there mind if you storming them with "your opinion" like a Don Quixote.

Your only polarizing the discussion, and you are really not helping eider side, that is to get to the facts of whats really happening.

My neighbor and friend is a real scientist, a DNA researcher and par time teacher at the university, and of course we have disused it, and he is saying:

1. there is a consensus in scientific community is, that global warming is happening.
2. that no one knows, if it is man made or just a natural circle.
3. that it dose not hurt to be at the side of caution, as if it is man made and the balance tips, its gone be very hard unbelievable more costly to get the balance back, and we need to do it anyway because we are running out of energy.

What happened was that in the 90s, scientist saw a steep rise in global temperatures, and they ware corresponding whit mans increase in pollution output.
So even do they did not fully understand what was going on, they panicked and puled the emergency brake.

Now a decade and a half later, and with a better understand whats going on, the consensus changed from "man is causing global warming" to "man is A factor in global warming", there is just no real consensus on how big the human factor is.

And “crackpots” as you describe Professor Jones and Professor Mann, are apparently (hint) on both sides of the arguments.

If we don't stop polarizing the discussion now, we will never find out whats really happening!

And the primary solutions to fix global warming, fixes a other problem we need to fix of the same magnitude anyway, the fact that we are running out of oil and gas!
And biggest solution to combat global warming is reducing energy consumption.


RE: More BS
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/28/2011 1:06:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Your now like a capitalist standing in front of wall street, shouting that capitalism is a good thing!
Neither the people of Wall street or occupied are gone changing there mind if you storming them with "your opinion" like a Don Quixote.

Odd non-sequitir. What does capitalism and/or Don Quixote have to do with this debate?
quote:
My neighbor and friend is a real scientist, a DNA researcher and par time teacher at the university, and of course we have disused it, and he is saying:

1. there is a consensus in scientific community is, that global warming is happening.
2. that no one knows, if it is man made or just a natural circle.
3. that it dose not hurt to be at the side of caution, as if it is man made and the balance tips, its gone be very hard unbelievable more costly to get the balance back, and we need to do it anyway because we are running out of energy.

What happened was that in the 90s, scientist saw a steep rise in global temperatures, and they ware corresponding whit mans increase in pollution output.
So even do they did not fully understand what was going on, they panicked and puled the emergency brake.

Now a decade and a half later, and with a better understand whats going on, the consensus changed from "man is causing global warming" to "man is A factor in global warming", there is just no real consensus on how big the human factor is.

Your friend is a smart man. That's exactly what I'm arguing here. My point is that some people are arguing that we should be pulling the brake harder. That's why I'm arguing that transparency is needed.

Read my "Facts" comment in the other column... It's practically a mirror image of what your friend said.

My debate is simply with those arguing for sweeping global-economic change and the few scientists who try to sell AGW as if we know exactly how much % of warming man is responsible for and where things exactly are going to end up.
quote:
And the primary solutions to fix global warming, fixes a other problem we need to fix of the same magnitude anyway, the fact that we are running out of oil and gas!
And biggest solution to combat global warming is reducing energy consumption.

Nobody is arguing against improved power efficiency. But the question is whether to let the free market mandate change or force change via political action.

I would argue if you removed political and legal barriers to cheap, clean energy like modern Gen. III and IV nuclear reactor designs, you could have your cake and eat it too without carbon sequestrations/carbon credits/meat rationing and a whole host of other economically deleterious actions.

My point is that if you're turning your back on the cheap and simple solution (nuclear) and going for more expensive solutions, the burden of proof is much higher because the response needs to be more carefully targeted in exact $$ amount.


RE: More BS
By michael67 on 11/28/2011 4:20:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What does capitalism and/or Don Quixote have to do with this debate?

Noting, other then that you keep shouting, like there is no global warming, when there is, the only question is, just how mouths is man responsible for it.
you apparently know that global warming is real, change the tone of the article, and just report that you think that these scientist are misrepresenting the truth.

The hole article reads like all climatologist are cooking the books in favor of man made global heating model, that is just a insult to all other climatologist that do honest research.

And using inflammatory images, dose not help the debate on bit
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/22584_Al_Gore_F...

The first part of your post just read like a creationism debate.

quote:
But the question is whether to let the free market mandate change or force change via political action.

Why not make a combination of the two.

Just tax hydrocarbon energy, the more you use, the more you pay.

We pay in Europe $7.50 a gallon for 95 octane petrol, do we like it hell no, but we drive smaller cars now, and most people don't drive more then 10~15 mile to work, do you really need a big car for that ?
Can it be done over night? no.
But saying you gone increase energy tax by 5% for 10y, and guaranty to lower other taxes by a equal amount, that would work.

I own a V12 6L Jaguar XJS, 550HP Skyline, people could say i like fast cars.
But wake up we don't live in the 80s anymore, you just cant drive cars like that daily anymore!

And now for daily use, i drive a Lexus CT200h.
EPA Fuel Economy Estimates (city/highway/combined) 43/40/42 mpg, that's a lot better then my old GS350 did with 18/25/20 mpg.
Do i miss the GS, sure, do i miss it at the petrol station, hell no!
And even a small Yaris would still get me to and from work.

Taxing a resource that is getting scarce a lot extra is a smart thing to do, it start people to economize there use and buy for example the next time a smaller car, in the end it a win win for all.

Or are you saying that people cant do 99% of the tings they do now with there big cars not with a smaller car?

Hell i have more space in the CT then in the GS when i put the backseats down.

The same go's for isolating houses, people here get 5j interest free loans for them, and the materials used are also tax free.

My house is from the late 60s, after putting in a heat pump, double glassing all windows and isolating the whole house, we literately cut our energy cost more then in half.

A lot of the energy saving solutions have real mid-range benefits, and great long range benefits.

Just tax the hydrocarbon energy cost, and let the market find out what is the best (alternative) solution.

You will be less dependable on (foreign) oil, people wast less money on energy, and hell as a benefit, you save the environment.
quote:
My point is that if you're turning your back on the cheap and simple solution (nuclear)

Nuclear is not that cheap, its a complex proses, and expensive to build, and not suited for every location.

I have noting against nuclear energy, but in general is more expensive then hydrocarbon based energy.
Thorium could be a alternative if developed, as it would be potential a mouths cheaper and saver alternative, that even ecofreaks would have a hard time to object against.

I am open for any solution, but I think all governments have to stick there heads together, and make a list of projects and share data.
Make a list of whats alternatives there are to fossil fuel, coordinate and share results.

Because one thing is sure, we are running out of cheep oil, and if we don't act now, the crises we are in now, will be noting compared whats to come.


RE: More BS
By ekv on 11/28/2011 1:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The first part of your post just read like a creationism debate.
Amazing.

When you say [T]"he first part of your post", it could be you're referring to Jason's immediately preceding reply to you. But I'm looking at it and there's nothing like that there. So you must be referring to the article itself. Again, there's nothing like that there. What is there is an explanation saying, essentially, because you nancy-boys got all hot & bothered by the first article, here's another and the reasoning will be stated more thoroughly so you can pick it apart. Even catering to the AGW crowd, Jason gets beat up even worse! You guys are never satisfied.
quote:
but we drive smaller cars now
I'm glad for you that you can afford smaller cars. I'm happy that you're happy, and I'd love to join you but I just can't force myself to be insane. You're insane to want to force everybody into that mold. I'll ask again, who do you think you are? Commissar Michael?
quote:
But saying you gone increase energy tax by 5% for 10y, and guaranty to lower other taxes by a equal amount, that would work.
Promises, promises. President and Congress have a great track-record there. [/sarcasm off]. Your European Socialism is a drag. It is boring as hell. Sorry. Big gov't doesn't work. The rooskies found that out. Greece found that out. Italy. Maybe someday China, who knows.
quote:
Because one thing is sure, we are running out of cheep oil, and if we don't act now, the crises we are in now, will be noting compared whats to come.
And now who is the alarmist? Instead of endlessly tweaking tax revenues and gov't regulations on "hydrocarbon based energy", why not just solve the energy crisis and invest in nuclear? Oh, that's right, because you haven't had enough time to tweak the regulations on that industry....


RE: More BS
By michael67 on 11/29/2011 4:55:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're insane to want to force everybody into that mold.

If a hurricane is coming, you don't plan for a barbeque, you cover the windows.

Asia is starting to own more cars.
Oil is running out, that is not a prediction, its a fact.

People don't do macro planing, if we don't cut down on consumption we are all fucked.
And yes the truth sometimes really sucks, we are in this crises because there is no more cheap oil.

The US spend 2 trillion on the war in Iraq over oil, energy prizes are rising all over, and guise what, energy prizes make op for a big part of the total prize of products.

quote:
Promises, promises. President and Congress have a great track-record there.

I don't live in Greece, Italy, USA or what ever, I live in Western Europa, and socialism is not communism, if managed well like in Holland Germany or Scandinavia, it can be a hell of a lot better then most alternatives.

But yeah how would you know how other systems work, as 75% of Americans don't even own a passport.
As the pure capitalistic way is working so mouths better, just ask all the people that have bin evicted out of there homes.

I am not saying that one system is better then the other, what i am saying that if we would start taxing energy more, people will learn quicker to be energy efficient.
And if you learn to do that sooner then others, you could have a advantage over others.

Or do you really think its a good plan to all keep driving V8 Doge ram's?
Again, change is not always nice, I would not mind driving everyday to work in my V12 XJS, tho its not very realistic.

And what happens if oil prizes go to 2~300 a barrel, what country will have the edge of the other ?
The one with the V8's or the one with the small efficient 4 cylinder cars, and more energy efficient economy.

quote:
And now who is the alarmist? Instead of endlessly tweaking tax revenues and gov't regulations on "hydrocarbon based energy", why not just solve the energy crisis and invest in nuclear? Oh, that's right, because you haven't had enough time to tweak the regulations on that industry....

I have noting against nuclear power, but apparently you don't know the difference between a realist and alarmist.

To build a nuclear power plant cost about 15 to 25 years, the quickest you could build one is in 10 years, if you could really steamroll the bureaucracy.

Lets say you start building nuclear power plants now, how many do you think you could build at the same time before you run out of skilled labor to build them?

It will take +30 years before you have all of them online, and there are no plans to build one on the moment, so if you would decide now to build lets say 50 plants, it would take at least 15 years before the first even come online, and yeah oil prizes will stay stable that long.

And even then nuclear power plants are not a magical fix, if everyone would switch to nuclear power, we would have the same crises for plutonium and uranium, as it is just as scarce as oil.

Thorium that is way more natural available would be a option if we had a working design for one

There is a real difference between a realist and alarmist or in this case a dreamer.


RE: More BS
By ekv on 11/29/2011 7:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If a hurricane is coming
The Atlantic hurricane season is officially from 1 June to 30 November. If you're trying to raise the alarm, methinks you're a bit off. Just like you're off regarding AGW and the impact of Man.
quote:
Oil is running out, that is not a prediction, its a fact.
True. In about 200-300 years. Oh no! Quick, raise taxes!
quote:
socialism is not communism, if managed well like in Holland Germany or Scandinavia, it can be a hell of a lot better then most alternatives.
Operative phrase If managed well. It always boils down to this. Which is what the founders of our country realized and why we have a limited form of gov't with checks and balances. In a capitalist system there are risks and rewards. You, the individual are responsible to manage your life, those risks and rewards. What the US has today though is Crony-Capitalism and is much too close to socialism. Which is part of the eviction story. But you know all this.

My point, despite your misunderstanding, about "promises, promises" is that politicians tell lies, and you know this too. They say things like "Oil is running out, that is not a prediction, its a fact." Then demand money to spend on their pet projects. Meanwhile it is a fabricated emergency, a false alarm. You use the Iraq war as an example of negligent spending. While I disagree about the purpose there and the lives saved, even you are arguing that gov't spends too much. Or rather, gov't doesn't spend too much but they don't spend it on your pet project.

What I was and am getting at is that gov't ought to be limited. They ought not have the power and money in the first place, or at least not so much. Less ability to lie. Less taxes. More money in my pocket. You do not know how to spend my money better than me. I refuse to fit your mold.

Damn you're boring. But that's tax-and-spdne socilaism for yuo.
quote:
Or do you really think its a good plan to all keep driving V8 Doge ram's?
Drive what you like. Who appointed me over you? or you over me, Commissar Michael. Why do you think like this? You're so damn rich, why do you worry about these things?
quote:
And what happens if oil prizes go to 2~300 a barrel, what country will have the edge of the other ?
Look, oil price went over $100 around 2008 election cycle. Gas prices soared over $4/gal. Recently oil is near $100/bb and gas prices are rock steady around $3.60/gal. $200/bb is just an opportunity for somebody, some industry. Especially nuclear. Your whole tirade about lead-times to build and high initial capital outlay is silly. Do you realize that? By way of analogy, there are companies that would love to drill for oil in ANWR. All the politicians kept complaining it'd take 10 years to develop the field safely. That was 18 yr's ago. Politicians are still blocking it. Nowadays, do you have any idea how many companies want to build nuclear power plants? Last I heard it was around 30. Yes, they all know the bloody costs!

Your politics of scarcity here is just BS. Uranium, Thorium, AGW ... whatever.

I would further point out that nuclear power has a higher energy density than any other commercial power source available now. That means it has high potential efficiency. Germany, your model for a socialist economy, is shooting themselves in the foot by 1) bailing out Greece, and 2) shutting down their nuclear power plants. I like our chances against them in a globally competitive marketplace. Streamlining the US bureaucracy can only help our competitiveness.


RE: More BS
By michael67 on 11/29/2011 12:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ok lets agree to disagree, as i think, putting your fingers in your ears, and go lalalalaaa works very well for you.

My experience as a piping supervisor in the (perto)chemical industry tells me something else.

Anyway good luck, hope you right, and i am wrong, i am only afraid i am not.


RE: More BS
By ekv on 11/29/2011 3:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ok lets agree to disagree, as i think, putting your fingers in your ears, and go lalalalaaa works very well for you.
You haven't yet answered one of my questions, and you have the temerity to say I have my fingers in my ears?! Perhaps you could look in teh mirror.

We've had discussions before, but apparently you haven't learned much? You've even mentioned your line of work, which just makes your alarmist claims all the more astounding. Especially since you can't back any of it up.

If the alarm needs to be raised it ought to be in regards to out-of-control gov't spending [the very people who have a vested interest in taking more tax dollars from me]. That is what I fear.

I really don't care to dog you out, but then I don't care to be put in such a position either. Something about you compels me.


RE: More BS
By michael67 on 11/29/2011 5:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You haven't yet answered one of my questions

Think i have done that, your only not seeing it as a answer you like.

We all pay tax, that's some think we cant avoid, i am saying shift the tax to mange scarce resources as mouths as possible.

quote:
which just makes your alarmist claims all the more astounding.

I would think it makes me more than average knowledgeable, next to that my brother works as chief mechanic on Seismic survey ship, and his girlfriend is a geologist for the same firm.
http://www.pgs.com

And i am not a alarmist, anyone that pays attention knows that oil is running out

quote:
If the alarm needs to be raised it ought to be in regards to out-of-control gov't spending

Actually its not the normal spending that's a problem.
It militarily spending and contracts, the tax cuts and aviation of banks and the top 1% richest people.

And we are all guilty of making the system like it because we vote on politicians that can make the best soundbites, instead of honest politicians that tell tings we don't wane hear.

quote:
I really don't care to dog you out, but then I don't care to be put in such a position either. Something about you compels me.

Did you not start the name calling ? "Commissar"


RE: More BS
By ekv on 11/30/2011 4:54:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think i have done that,
Ok, perhaps I spoke rashly.
quote:
We all pay tax, that's some think we cant avoid, i am saying shift the tax to mange scarce resources as mouths as possible.
AGW posits that Man's economic activity is dooming the planet. I am a conservative. Whether you read the Bible or not, I think we can agree that Man is supposed to shepherd and take care of our resources. Our difference comes when you want to FORCE me to pay for your idea of "managing the environment". Again, I can allocate my resources better than you. It's almost like my message is falling on deaf ears....
quote:
I would think it makes me more than average knowledgeable
No, that's what I thought. You have done surprisingly little to dissuade me.
quote:
And i am not a alarmist, anyone that pays attention knows that oil is running out
The question is ... when. Water is running out. Uranium is running out. The Universe is running out -- only 15 billion years to go. If oil is running out tomorrow then raise teh alram. However if it is a 200 - 300 years from now ...? Then I'm the realist.

The estimates range from 8 years ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

to 600 years
http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run...

The Capitalist system with its Supply-and-demand curve will bring about adjustments. And the same damn exact thing applies to AGW. Think about it, there's a lot more data and evidence with oil than there is for AGW, and there is far from consensus on 'peak oil.' Even then, the free market has an answer, prices rise and/or you can start a company that creates a cheaper solution.

Except in a Crony Capitalist (or Socialist) system a big corporation can buy a gov't official and they would raise taxes on you or exact new regulations on you. Try to put you, a competitor, out of business. I've been hit by it and know others hit by this [the gusting wind of bureaucracy, as it were]. Instead of pointing out the hypocrisy of Crony Capitalism, you take the easy route and suggest higher taxes. [Eminently pragmatic from your perspective]. The market though is already going to raise prices, but you think you can do better by forcing me to pay higher taxes. The gov't is nowhere near as efficient as the free-market. If you invested in the stock market you'd know that. Unless you're claiming otherwise? Really?
quote:
Actually its not the normal spending that's a problem. It militarily spending and contracts, the tax cuts and aviation of banks and the top 1% richest people.
Ahh, Socialism in all its glory. What then? you're retired, or perhaps still working past your time and just greedy? But you're complaining about the top 1%. Again, what is with you?
quote:
Did you not start the name calling ? "Commissar"
You may want to revisit teh history, bub, and don't quote me out of context. I wrote
quote:
I'll ask again, who do you think you are? Commissar Michael?
Questions you did not address, though you claim otherwise. I guess that is the answer, an implied blank, and you are conceding the point. So, congratulations, have it your way, you were right, "your only not seeing it as a answer you like."


RE: More BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/30/2011 9:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My experience as a piping supervisor in the (perto)chemical industry tells me something else.


Experience in piping makes you an expert on tax and economic policies? How interesting.

Petroleum isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. It's already taxed through the roof. What do you think you would accomplish anyway? I find your argument shockingly bad in so many ways.


RE: More BS
By Smilin on 11/29/2011 6:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And what happens when oil prizes go to 2~300 a barrel, what country will have the edge of the other ?
The one with the V8's or the one with the small efficient 4 cylinder cars, and more energy efficient economy


Fixed for you. Now suitable to QFT. Carry on..


RE: More BS
By JediJeb on 11/29/2011 6:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But yeah how would you know how other systems work, as 75% of Americans don't even own a passport. As the pure capitalistic way is working so mouths better, just ask all the people that have bin evicted out of there homes.


A majority of the ones evicted out of their homes were because they had visions of grandeur and bought homes too expensive for their incomes or were at least at the maximum they could make payments on leaving no room for error when dealing with a change in income. They are learning their lessons the hard way. I guess with the European model they should still be granted a home to live in and not have to pay for their mistakes. People will never become wise if they never have to deal with the consequences of bad decisions.


RE: More BS
By michael67 on 11/29/2011 8:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
I can only testify to the Dutch and Norwegian systems.

But basically you can barrow a maximum of 4 times gross income, tho there are some finace models that are doggy, and some people have problems paying those.

But i believe that i was reading last in a dutch online newspaper, that the amount of people that cant pay there mortgage went up from 1% to 2%, and as long as you get help you will still have a roof above your head.


RE: More BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/30/2011 10:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
Ekv it behooves me to inform you that you're mostly wasting your time. Michael is a liberal and arguing with him is an Olympic event. I see you are arguing based on his premise, when the real path is to reject the Liberal premise alltogether.

See Michael believes that most petroleum use is "wasteful". His premise that taxing "carbon" is the way to conservation is classically flawed. Because petroleum is a necessity, not a luxury that should be taxed. Also he's completely ignoring, or intentionally not mentioning, that "evil SUV" users already pay higher taxes. And that these taxes did not lead to massive conservation of the resource. All fossil fuels are taxed several times, at several levels.

Another premise is that he sees taxation as a form of social engineering and policy control. Something taxation was never meant to address, and never should. This is the kind of thinking that leads to ideas of "fast food taxes" or taxes on cigarettes and other things we've decided we don't like. Does it help solve any problem? No. It just gives governments more money. How is giving the government more money going to conserve fossil fuels? It won't!

Would taxing food at prohibitive levels today be prudent if food were going to "run out" at some point in the future? No, because people need food. It's not an option. Neither is the use of fossil fuels. Instead you just create economic disparities and downturns. What happens when fuel prices rise? We all know the answer to that.

So ekv, you've fought well, but unfortunately I see your arguments based on his premise. Attack his flawed premise, not the points within it, and you will have your victory. Frankly I think you already have it anyway, bravo.


RE: More BS
By ekv on 11/30/2011 2:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Michael is a liberal and arguing with him is an Olympic event
It's good exercise? 8) Athletes lift iron, I guess I lift heavy arguments 8)
quote:
Another premise is that he sees taxation as a form of social engineering and policy control.
You make several excellent points, as usual. Social engineering and policy control you've expressed both terms succinctly and accurately. That's actually what I was driving towards but didn't have the terminology. Thanks.

Ann Coulter, ou la la, in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" fleshes out some of these terms. I would simply mention, I don't need big Gov't to run my life, while Liberals seem to need a Carbon/Energy/Food/Etc. tax. It's why social engineering must be imposed and forced upon all of us. Ridiculous of course.


RE: More BS
By cactusdog on 11/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: More BS
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: More BS
By winie on 11/27/2011 10:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
RE: More BS
By cactusdog on 11/28/2011 4:09:06 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is, your source material is dodgy and comes from people with an agenda. The first round of "climategate" has been proven to be twisted and taken out of context, and most of them were already in the public domain and discussed openly but "climategate" made it seem like the information was hacked. Completely dishonest.

Calling this "Climategate 2" ignores the truth about "climategate 1". Climategate 2 makes it sound like climategate 1 had validity which it didnt.

We should all ask questions and expect transparency but we should be careful where we get our information, particularly if the material comes from people who are trying to discredit the science at any cost.

You can get any scientific data related to climate change from many different organisations. I encourage you to read it.


RE: More BS
By soulcarver on 11/28/2011 4:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The whole context of these supposedly damning e-mails is very important to this conversation. Even sentences that look like straight forward assertions can be related to material that had been previously discussed and which would give them additional meaning. Those who honestly want to look into the science should spend the time and money to read the scholarly materials for themselves. Many articles are available through databases such as ScienceDirect. All one needs to do to get unlimited access to them is enroll in their local college or university at least part-time. You could also access them through a pay-per-view subscription, although enrolling part-time is far more cost effective.


RE: More BS
By soulcarver on 11/28/2011 5:00:55 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The whole context of these supposedly harmful e-mails is very important to this conversation. Even e-mails that look like straight forward assertions can be related to material that had been previously discussed and which would give them additional meaning. Those who honestly want to look into the science should spend the time and money to read the scholarly materials for themselves. Many articles are available through scientific databases. All one needs to do to get unlimited access to them is enroll in their local college or university at least part-time. You could also access them through a pay-per-view subscription, although enrolling part-time is far more cost effective.


RE: More BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: More BS
By soulcarver on 11/28/2011 2:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
I know that you believe this is the case, but I would like to point out some sources that say otherwise:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Cli...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702044...

From here it is, of course, up to you to decide if these claims are convincing or not.


RE: More BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/28/2011 2:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry guys, but how can you call blatant manipulation of the Peer Review process a matter of "context"? There's no context or point of view that put's that practice is a favorable or acceptable light.

Your first link...okay bypassing how you think The Christian Science monitor (isn't that ironic) is the best source, they only confirm a study that the Earth is "warming". No proof of a link between the warming and man made CO2 is evident. NONE!

Your second link, same thing! Did you even see this at the end? I'll quote:

quote:
How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.


RE: More BS
By soulcarver on 11/28/2011 3:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I have read these articles extensively. I concede that Christian Science is a joke, but the Christian Science Monitor is a highly respected, Pulitzer prize winning, daily newspaper. The fact is that this is about the science and on that fact independent studies have backed the science. If you want a definitive link, studies have been done that trace the amount of anthropogenic carbon present by looking at the prevalence of certain carbon isotopes in ocean water. This is done because air measurements are problematic. I would suggest searching for these articles as there are many that are open to the public. Other studies are ongoing to also definitively quantify the amount contributed by anthropogenic carbon. So yes... I would cautiously say the science is on-going.


RE: More BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/28/2011 3:53:25 PM , Rating: 1
Except we already know from the geological record that C02 levels were up to TWENTY times higher than now, and plant and animal life flourished. If AWG was correct, a 20x increase in carbon levels would have rendered the planet uninhabitable. How are you going to explain that one?

quote:
I would suggest searching for these articles


I would suggest you stop condescending me and assume I HAVE read much on this and I, obviously, do know what I'm talking about. In fact I have just read one of those articles, and I found this very interesting:

"In prehistoric times, during the Permian, in the Palaeozoic Era, for example, the concentration of Carbon Dioxide dropped below 210 ppmV. Throughout the Permian Period plant and animal species diverged and diversified as never before. Dinosaurs prospered and predominated over all the other orders of vertebrates. Coniferous plants first appeared in the Permian. The change of atmospheric temperature at the time of the Permian was around 10 °C. By comparison, the current change of global temperature is only 0.52 °C while the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 385 ppmV. If the global temperature is dependent on CO2, then the change of temperature at present would be around 10 °C or higher , as it was during the Permian Period."

Penny for your thoughts?


RE: More BS
By SKiddywinks on 11/28/2011 6:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
Global temperature is dependent on CO2. That's a fact.

The other fact it that global temperatures are dependent on more than just CO2. The sheer number of things involved is mind boggling, which is why climate science needs to be very careful.

Having said that, the Earth is definitely warming, and I think it is pretty much certain that mankind is having an effect in that regard. The only real question is how bad is it, how bad are we making it, and what we need to do (large or small) about it.


RE: More BS
By soulcarver on 11/28/2011 9:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
@Reclaimer77: Look, I am not trying to "ruffle your feathers." I was merely trying to be polite while suggesting avenues for your future inquiries if you so wanted, but you saw it as me being purely bombastic. I do not intend that, so I am sorry if I offend you.

Entering into a geological discussion, note how the planet was a much different place during the Permian period:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80...

Also, although the following paper concludes that "climatic forcing factors other than high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may need to be examined to determine the cause of the Late Paleozoic deglaciation," it suggests that CO2 levels after this initial warming period were much higher than your article states:

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12567.full.pdf

Additionally, the Permian period was marked by wild reversals in the climate; it is understandable then that there could have been a drastic change in atmospheric temperatures of around 10°C. The Permian period ranged from an early period of glaciation to a late period of temperatures much warmer than today. In line with this, CO2 concentrations also widely fluctuated. On average the Permian period experienced C02 concentrations in the neighborhood of 900ppm, while the average temperature was 2°C warmer than it is today.


RE: More BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/28/2011 9:29:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Entering into a geological discussion, note how the planet was a much different place during the Permian period:


I fail to see how that has ANY bearing on how the planet Earth's temperatures are in relation to C02 levels. The atmosphere does not care if the C02 came from man or not. For you to dismiss proven history in favor of shaky theories and predictive models seems abhorrent to me. There's no possible explanation as to why C02 directly effects temperatures now, but didn't back then. The only explanation is that C02 does NOT drive global temps directly.


RE: More BS
By soulcarver on 11/28/2011 9:46:35 PM , Rating: 3
It is clear that you did not take the time to read the article I provided due to your quick response. This discussion has devolved into nothing more than polemics. Nothing will be gained by me restating what I have already. Thank you for the spirited discussion, but I believe it is time for us to part ways.


RE: More BS
By Reclaimer77 on 11/28/2011 10:50:48 PM , Rating: 1
And it's clear you don't want to use common sense and deductive reasoning.


RE: More BS
By Smilin on 11/30/2011 5:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Penny for your thoughts?

Sure, why not.
quote:
If the global temperature is only dependent on CO2, then the change of temperature at present would be around 10 °C or higher

There fixed for you.


Good science and bad science
By Tony Swash on 11/28/2011 6:48:26 AM , Rating: 4
The team CRU collected a large amount of data, almost all from public funded bodies, and after a very complex process of data processing produced something that claimed to show a trend in global temperature. That data went on to be a key building block of a political process which seeks to implement policy changes that will cost trillions of dollars and fundamentally effect billions of lives.

Under those circumstances I would expect that it would standard procedure for the data and the techniques used to process it into a 'trend' to be widely scrutinised and checked by many third parties to see if any errors had been made. That didn't happen. Moreover when other scientists sought access to the data, or requested access to the algorithms that were used to process that data to extrapolate a trend, they were denied access. That in itself is shocking. Then some of these scientists and others tried to use Freedom of Information to get at the data. That was also blocked and obstructed to the point of material being deliberately deleted. That is really shockingly bad behaviour.

The climate scientists claim that the whole thing is a terrible waste of time. But the time has been wasted trying to block the release of data, releasing the data would have taken very little time. If at the beginning of all this the climate scientists involved had said ' of course we want our work and our data to be scrutinised, we have posted it all on a website' the whole exercise would have taken a couple of days. It was the hiding of data that has taken all the time.

So does all this matter? I for one think that there has been a gentle warming trend intermittently since the mid to late nineteenth century. I am not sure a CO2 contribution to that trend can be seen in the data but I am willing to be convinced. I am not convinced at the moment.

So the broad brush of the trend taken from the CRU team and processed even further into the IPCC reports and charts is probably very roughly right. But the devil is in the detail it seems.

In order to see what I mean by that take a few minutes to watch this presentation by Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtillot. It was his initial request for data from CRU that in many ways kicked off this whole sad mess. He naively asked for the data and was astonished that his request was refused. So, painstakingly, he and his team have tried to replicate the CRU data and see if the way it is presented in the IPCC report is accurate. It turned out it wasn't. As you can see in his presentation, the trends he finds are more complex that those presented by the IPCC particularly at the regional level and they do not fit comfortably with the theory that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. I recommend that you watch it - this is how science should be done, not with the deletion of data or the hiding of material but by open debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA




RE: Good science and bad science
By Breathless on 11/28/2011 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why were you voted down?


RE: Good science and bad science
By Tony Swash on 11/28/2011 7:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know but I assume it's because I write a lot of pro-Apple comments and consequently upset a lot of iPhobics.

If that is the case it's sad really, for them not for me.


RE: Good science and bad science
By Smilin on 11/29/2011 6:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Close. It's because people don't like or respect you.

Sad for you, not them.


It Is ALL Bull541T...
By croc on 11/28/2011 12:48:16 AM , Rating: 1
I, for one, will be long gone before this little lab experiment plays out - as will almost everyone else reading this missive. But personally, being the selfish asshole that I truly am, I do not give a shit whether man is warming the world, or whether or not the world is even warming. Time will tell. It just won't inform me, as Time will have put me down way before any of this matters...

However, I DO have views on this topic, most of which will remain personally held. This one I will share, and that is that man will in some way make the world such a bad place to live that Homo Sapiens will be the first species to self-extinguish. After which, after a few aeons, the world will once again be a nice tourist spot for the many inter-galactic sentient species that are now avoiding our trash heap.




RE: It Is ALL Bull541T...
By Dorkyman on 11/28/2011 6:03:48 AM , Rating: 5
Let me guess; I'll bet you're a "glass half-empty" kind of guy, yes?

You think our current earth is a trash heap? I'd gently suggest your outlook could use a bit of recalibration. Go rent Soylent Green.

As for species extinction, sure, that stuff happens all the time. But as you mention, it's beyond our control and far out on the timeline. Just hug your loved ones, be kind to strangers, and enjoy the day.


Amusing feedback
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/28/2011 8:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
Mick, I remember when you first started here with the warming stuff and Masher2 was loud and proud to state it was all a sham, funny that here we are two years later and you are catching the same flames for reporting the hard truth that has now come to light more and more frequently. That's the business of it though, damned if we do and damned if we don't.




RE: Amusing feedback
By just4U on 11/29/2011 2:17:43 AM , Rating: 2
It's only been two years since Michael Asher left? Seems longer.. I wish you folks would fill us in more on why he no longer posts articles at DT. Anyway, I am sure the irony of it all is not lost on Jason.


By Proton on 11/28/2011 12:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
the I in IPCC stands for intergovernmental, not international.




missing a word
By Trisped on 11/28/2011 2:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds like good advice -- advice Phil Jones and Thomas Stocker are doing their best to follow.

should probably be "...doing their best NOT to follow." as this the intent of the article, the people in questions are not trying to follow the suggestion of keeping people informed.




Nothing to see here
By charleski on 11/28/2011 2:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our report wasn't perfect, but it got the most important point right. The climate emails, if authentic, inarguably prove Phil Jones and a handful of other climatologists plotted to keep their professional actions out of the public eye.


No. With the context in place it's clear there's something completely different going on.

Thanks for providing that context, which makes it pretty obvious that they're trying to avoid allowing climate skeptics to use the tactic of repeated FOI requests to waste their time.

Your first article certainly gave me pause, you gave the impression there was some concerted campaign to cover things up. As far as I'm concerned, the whole 'debate' around climate-change is really just a manifestation of the difficulty the public has with understanding complex scientific evidence. But I'd be very concerned if there were proof of scientists working to falsify or improperly manipulate that evidence. Instead, it turns out that they're merely trying to frustrate malicious attacks from campaigners.

Your first article turns out to have been nothing more than over-hyped baloney. But, it's good of you to provide the evidence yourself, maybe it would have been better to have done so (providing full quotes) right from the start.




Wow imagine that
By spkay on 11/28/2011 5:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
When you politicize any issue to the degree that GW has been, most of the "reports" automatically lose much of their credibility among the real educated science community. We realize there are political axes to grind with every "report" or "finding" and that dissenting opinions and research are dismissed or not published to avoid diminishing the politically supported narrative. When energy policy and federal funding decisions are being made there will always be a highly political interpretation of all scientific research.

My own personal disappointment is that good scientific research is made more and more difficult for the general population to believe when so much has been turned into a political action funding campaign.




Climategate BS
By Belard on 11/30/2011 10:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm late...
One VERY important aspect of Climategate from a few years ago.

A ) After investigations, it was determined that no data was falsified, nothing actually happened. The whole blow up was from stupid email chatter. A poor example "blah blah blah... man, Lisa is hot, I bet I can see her naked one day blah blah"

B ) The computers where HACKED. The emails were NOT found, were not released by some honest-joke. The COMPUTERS were illegally hacked.

C ) The group that hacked the computers is being investigated in at least 3 countries. With Luck, they WILL be serving jail time... top to bottom. As of now, hundreds of people are already being investigated and fired.

D ) The group is called.... Newscorp... aka: FOX aka: Murdoch. They have been hacking computers and phone systems from hundreds, if not thousands of people. They even bought out an American company in order to avoid being sued - for hacking.

So when someone talks about Climategate as if its proof that climate change is all lied... you're talking to someone who doesn't know the facts or a zombie.

PS: What is with these idiots? First, they want capitalism - profits, but god-forbid people/companies make a PROFIT on green technology?! That is what DRIVES progress. Oh, so only oil/coal tech needs to make a profit?!




blah blah blah
By cmdrdredd on 11/29/2011 12:05:20 AM , Rating: 1
I'm no scientist nor do I claim to be but it seems pretty odd that the old men who fucked things up if you believe the man made mumbo jumbo, are trying to tell the younger generations how much they have to sacrifice to fix it. You know why there's a Generation X? Because you all fucked things up so badly we just want to say Fuck you and give you the finger because you didn't give a flying shit 30-50years ago but suddenly want to make it our problem to clean up. Fuck off




Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Not a problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2011 10:46:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't see how this is a problem. I've worked as a backup admin at a major public university and the email backups are structured such that they are deleted every 7 days, which is fewer than the maximum number of days required for the university to respond to an FOIA request (and my boss told me that 7 was chosen specifically for this reason).

I've taken courses at several universities/had email accounts at them and I've never had my emails deleted by system admins, even ones that are months or years old. The whole mailbox is there in all its glory. Never heard of system admins going into peoples' boxes and deleting them, unless they were over their storage limit. That seems like a very destructive policy.

Regardless, backup procedures is not what's being suggested here. What's being discussed here is deleting active (non-archived) conversations as in an intentional effort to prevent the public from accessing them.

The accidental deletion you're talking about is clearly different.


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/27/2011 10:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Uh that's not what I said. I said "mail backups".

If a student/professor deletes an email, then it's deleted forever after 7 days. This way people can have a day or so to delete the email, lose the backup, and then "fail" to respond to FOIA.


RE: Not a problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/27/2011 11:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uh that's not what I said. I said "mail backups".

If a student/professor deletes an email, then it's deleted forever after 7 days. This way people can have a day or so to delete the email, lose the backup, and then "fail" to respond to FOIA.

Okay, I understand what you're saying now, but don't you think it's a problem to use such a process to prevent transparency?

I can see protecting private data sets, but when you're talking about work on public data sets, particularly work that will be guiding public policy, there's a lot of cause for transparency.


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/27/2011 11:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
PhD comics sums it up pretty well:

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comici...

This is just from University PR (which is dumbed down actual research, and usually only things that the public consider to be cool). This would be magnified by several orders of magnitude if all research was performed transparently.


RE: Not a problem
By dgingerich on 11/28/2011 12:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
University research is inherently non-political.


Here is where you are very, very wrong. University research is inherently very political. They get all their research money from state and federal funds. This means getting in bed, constantly, with political entities to get that money. If the politicians that run these entities don't like the results, the money gets cut. For that very reason, it is all political. All university research is suspect specifically for that reason.


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 12:45:49 AM , Rating: 1
You are so very wrong. Politicians have no say in how entities like NSF spend their grant money. NSF is staffed by respected professors who determine who gets grants and who does not.


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 12:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
In other words, the politicians determine the size of the pot, and academics decide what the pot is used for. Politicians can only increase/reduce the size of the pot.

Here is a link for you with plenty of details on the vetting process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foun...


RE: Not a problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/28/2011 12:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are so very wrong. Politicians have no say in how entities like NSF spend their grant money. NSF is staffed by respected professors who determine who gets grants and who does not.

That's somewhat misleading.

NSF grants are typically only one of several sources of funding either direct (funding the study in question) or indirect (funding the university/institution where the study is at). Private funding is critical to a vast number of American scientific studies, including climatology ones.

Nothing inherently wrong with that, but in some cases it can and does bring bias and political pressure to reach a certain conclusion with it.

Some sources of funding are less political than others. That is a more accurate statement.


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 1:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
Seems like you would agree that the problem isn't with academia itself, but rather the lack of funding :)

http://www.phdcomics.com/documents/phd041410.pdf


RE: Not a problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/28/2011 1:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seems like you would agree that the problem isn't with academia itself, but rather the lack of funding :)

http://www.phdcomics.com/documents/phd041410.pdf

Absolutely, the problem isn't with academia in its purest form, but the perversion that has occurred from years of budget cuts. Finally we agree. :)

I think the lack of agnostic taxpayer funding introduces a bias in research much as it does in politics.

Something like ~40 percent of funding in the last federal elections cycle came DIRECTLY from corporations by one report I read, with likely more coming from corps. but funneled through private donors.

No wonder politicians aren't always looking out for the public's best interest.

Likewise scientists are starved for funding and are encouraged at an institutional level to stick to certain results that will guarantee funding. This bias is most definitely there.

The only solution in both politics and science in terms of eliminating the guiding hand of "investors" is a carrot-and-stick approach of rewarding with public funding and punishing when private funding evokes bias.

Sadly there's little momentum in the scientific or political community to adopt such a sweeping change at this point.


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 1:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
For what it's worth though, most company funding of academia is well-intentioned.

For example: many professors and grad students in my field get their funding through Intel and NVIDIA. In this case, what makes them happy isn't "treading the company line". Instead, they use us as cheap sources of labor. Basically, we are used as risk-free attempts to push the cutting edge. If something is deemed to be limited (in the case of NVIDIA, CUDA), then NVIDIA would like us to figure out what it is good at, or define where exactly its limitations lie.

There is no politics involved. The only part where they have a say is the general topic area (e.g. CUDA), unless you choose to provide specifics. A company like NVIDIA simply says something like "we want to fund research in topics X, Y, and Z." There is no pressure to produce a certain outcome; indeed, if people were pressured to do so, NVIDIA would probably make incorrect business decisions in the future, which would eventually hurt their products and thus their profits.


RE: Not a problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/28/2011 1:43:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example: many professors and grad students in my field get their funding through Intel and NVIDIA. In this case, what makes them happy isn't "treading the company line". Instead, they use us as cheap sources of labor. Basically, we are used as risk-free attempts to push the cutting edge. If something is deemed to be limited (in the case of NVIDIA, CUDA), then NVIDIA would like us to figure out what it is good at, or define where exactly its limitations lie.

There is no politics involved. The only part where they have a say is the general topic area (e.g. CUDA), unless you choose to provide specifics. A company like NVIDIA simply says something like "we want to fund research in topics X, Y, and Z." There is no pressure to produce a certain outcome; indeed, if people were pressured to do so, NVIDIA would probably make incorrect business decisions in the future, which would eventually hurt their products and thus their profits.

Oh absolutely.

But what you're essentially alluding to is that in some cases corporate interests line up with public interests.

E.g. if you build a fancy new computer cluster that uses loads of CPUs or CUDA accelerate your work, you end up buying Intel and NVIDIA product. There's little bias there other than perhaps you choose a certain brand of hardware -- nothing with regard to the actual research itself.

This is the best case scenario. You get funded, you get hardware, you publish novel results, you create work that potentially saves lives, advances fundamental science, etc.

This is SOMETIMES how corporate funding in politics/science works out, but not always.

The danger becomes when the funding source has the potential of gaining from the research in terms of public policy, at the public's expense. I think this is the danger wrt studies both promoting the most alarmist AGW models and the studies promoting the laxest AGW models.


RE: Not a problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/28/2011 12:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here is where you are very, very wrong. University research is inherently very political. They get all their research money from state and federal funds. This means getting in bed, constantly, with political entities to get that money. If the politicians that run these entities don't like the results, the money gets cut. For that very reason, it is all political. All university research is suspect specifically for that reason.

Absolutely. It goes in both directions. On the one hand you have "green energy"/"carbon credits" investors like Al Gore that stand to make hundreds of millions if not billions if the most strict of climate regulations are put in place. Of course these interests would be keen on proving the most extreme AGW.

On the other hand you have interests like oil and coal, which would be interested in proving AGW not to be a serious concern. I think we'd be naive to NOT believe money isn't being tossed in both directions.

I think anyone who believes scientific research is unbiased should listen to this excellent NPR "This American Life" special:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/epi...

...it chronicles of a professor who tried to reveal risk with extracting natural gas and saw his job placed in jeopardy as a result.

Breaking the status quo is a fundamental and healthy part of science, but it today still draws great ostracism and the threat of de-funding. Just ask Judith Curry, a top climatologist-turned-IPCC skeptic who saw herself ostracized (as shown in the leaked emails) by her colleagues -- all for having an open mind and listening to critics.

Michael Mann:
quote:
I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.

Question:
Since when did research become about "causes" instead of investigating multiple avenues?

Answer:
When funding requires you promote and parrot a single extreme viewpoint and bias your studies to reinforce that point and try to discredit those who argue a less extreme viewpoint.


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 1:01:03 AM , Rating: 1
Professors who aren't good enough to get funding from unbiased institutions like NSF, etc. generally are the ones that end up getting the "biased" money sources.

Academia is like any other field, there are competent professors and then there are incompetent professors. If you guys have gone to college, I'm sure you've experienced both first-hand.

As for the NPR link, it certainly doesn't look very good but I haven't had time to take a look. In general, if the professor was tenured, there would be no way that he'd be fired. I don't see how "risk of firing" can possibly be an issue. Heck, there exist crappy professors who don't believe in evolution (and use their professorship as credentials for people to believe him), and even they haven't been fired.


RE: Not a problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/28/2011 1:38:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for the NPR link, it certainly doesn't look very good but I haven't had time to take a look. In general, if the professor was tenured, there would be no way that he'd be fired. I don't see how "risk of firing" can possibly be an issue. Heck, there exist crappy professors who don't believe in evolution (and use their professorship as credentials for people to believe him), and even they haven't been fired.

I think he was untenured, but it's been a couple months since I listened. I'd suggest listening to the full program before drawing conclusions, it's quite good if a bit troubling.

I do think NPR's This American Life muckrakes a bit, but it's muckraking in the most well-researched sense, and thus raises some good points.
quote:
Professors who aren't good enough to get funding from unbiased institutions like NSF, etc. generally are the ones that end up getting the "biased" money sources.

Academia is like any other field, there are competent professors and then there are incompetent professors. If you guys have gone to college, I'm sure you've experienced both first-hand.

Somewhat true, but when it comes to climatology much of the funding is handed down from the institution itself, e.g. the research center, so it's hard to identify where it's coming from.

quote:
Professors who aren't good enough to get funding from unbiased institutions like NSF, etc. generally are the ones that end up getting the "biased" money sources.

Only partially true. Many good researchers work at national labs or research centers. While such centers traditionally were quite agnostic in terms of financial influences, funding cuts have forced them to rely heavily on private donors.


RE: Not a problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/28/2011 12:43:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
University research is inherently non-political. It only becomes political after outside forces affect them. Transparency to the public (not to other fellow researchers) is bad since the public is too ignorant to understand what's going on, and then the media blows up on something taken out of context and/or misinterprets something. Nothing good can come out of it. It's harsh but true: these people aren't researchers for a reason

True, but whether climatologists like it or not, their research is being used to justify sweeping economic changes, before the full picture is known. Thus they are a special case in academia, an atypical case. Perhaps transparency isn't standard in academia as a whole, but in this case it should be, I feel, given the political context.

Proponents argue that we can't "gamble" and not act, but is it not "gambling" to act without full knowledge too?

Facts:
+CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases.
+Man produces both CO2 and methane directly (fossil fuel consumption) and indirectly (livestock)
+Temperature stations show the Earth warming between 1950 and 2000.
+Average temperatures mostly flatlined between 2000 and 2010, looking @ the NOAA, NASA, HadCRU, and Berkley Earth data sets, barring a peak around 2007.
+CO2 and methane almost certainly contributed some % to warming.
+CO2 and methane almost certainly were not the ONLY factor contributing to warming.
+Manmade greenhouse gases and temperatures rises have been correlated
+The exact % contribution of various factors (e.g. changes in dust levels, changes in ocean thermohaline circulation, greenhouse gases, etc.) has not been determined. Many models don't even consider some of these factors.
+ Thus the exact causative relation between greenhouse gases and temperature rises has not been determined definitively.
+Regulating greenhouse gases to pre-industrial levels would be hugely expensive.
+The feedback response to warming and all of the positive/negative effects are poorly understood.

Even the most "doomsday" of predictors of climatologists would be hard pressed to give exact % to all the factors I listed above in terms of warming contributions (e.g. changes in dust levels, changes in ocean thermohaline circulation, greenhouse gases, etc.).

I think when people look at "climate skepticism" they assume that skeptics wholly reject AGW. Rather many -- like myself -- started with a solid scientific understanding that greenhouses gases warm and AGW is likely true to some extent, but simply reject that the most extreme AGW theory has been proven definitively. i.e. I feel it has NOT been definitively proven than mankind is the sole proprietor of warming and is producing a doomsday scenario.

Remember, I originally defended AGW theory. I've only come to criticize it because of what I feel is evidence of bias/lack of transparency, coupled with premature public policy decisions.

I think regardless of how you cut it, given the momentously important public policy decisions involved, international transparency in this field of research should be a requirement, not an exception.


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 1:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
Climatology isn't the only field where there doesn't exist much transparency for the general public. Just consider any matter of national security. Indeed, one can pretty easily argue that global warming is a matter of national security.

For example, how many thousands of botched secret campaigns to kill Osama have there been before the final successful mission? You never hear the data about that. Pretend that there is a way such that this information can be provided to the general public without any terrorists knowing. Would providing this information be a good or bad thing? Why?


RE: Not a problem
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/28/2011 1:47:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Climatology isn't the only field where there doesn't exist much transparency for the general public. Just consider any matter of national security. Indeed, one can pretty easily argue that global warming is a matter of national security.

Really? How so?

I state above that I don't see that as being a valid argument.

I'd be interested in hearing a detailed description of how letting the public know about the research procedure for something that influences costly public policy is a national security threat.

I'm always open to another (different) perspective than my own.

That said, in this case I feel personally transparency is warranted, and there's no compelling security risk preventing it, as far as I can think of.


RE: Not a problem
By ppardee on 11/29/2011 3:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming is as much a threat to national security as Martian attacks... Well, possibly a little less.

Secrecy is important on military matters because the enemy could use the information to negatively affect the outcome of the operation. If AGW is real and exists to the extent that the liberal machine wants you to believe it does, then restricting the information is counter-productive.

However, if AGW is a farce and the goal is to grab more control over the people (for money and power) and/or advance your social agenda, then secrecy is vital. You must not let people know the truth and instead use fear in place of knowledge to move people to action.

Considering they have taken the latter course, one can only assume that the goal is NOT to stop AGW... you know, because it doesn't exist.

Of course, there is a 3rd alternative which is far less conspiratorial, but still no less insidious, and that is that the people honestly believe that global warming is a threat, but can't prove it. So they release only favorable information, and hide the rest away until they can prove it. I think this covers 90% of the general public and it sort of follows the religious cult pattern. These people are just as dangerous as the criminals who are using AGW for social manipulation.


RE: Not a problem
By NicodemusMM on 11/28/2011 12:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
It's interesting that what you describe is not too far from the attitude many politicians have, i.e. "The public is too dumb to know. Nothing good can come out of it." It seems that this attitude leads to the same end in research or politics. Corruption and self indulgence at the expense of others.

Regarding "University research is inherently non-political. It only becomes political after outside forces affect them"...

So the solution here would be to abolish currency? That's what I take from it since much of the research we're speaking of is based on funding from organizations that are anything except apolitical.

If "transparency to the public is bad" and "the public is too ignorant to understand" then perhaps researchers can find a way to do their job without the use of public funding of any kind. This should satisfy both parties as the researchers don't have to disclose anything the those seemingly beneath them and the public doesn't have to worry about researchers wasting their money chasing political goals.

"It's harsh but true: these people aren't researchers for a reason." Yes, some of us are unwilling to deal with the multitude of politics/backbiting/corruption at the campus level, state level, national level and internationally. We'd rather go our own way than to sell ourselves in order to publish. We'd also rather not be thrown in with such pseudo-elitists as indicated by your comment.


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 12:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
lol, you're just strengthening the anti-intellectual American stereotype

(Ironically I'm an American living in Texas of all places, so I get to say things like that)


RE: Not a problem
By Shadowmage on 11/28/2011 1:28:45 AM , Rating: 1
FYI there's really no point for "corruption" in academia. Professors get paid like shit, the job is stressful, the hours are long, and maybe 10 or so jobs open up every year for graduating PhD students. The only benefit is the job security (tenure), which you get only after a few years of "hazing" in which you have to teach the most classes (especially the ones that the senior faculty don't want to teach) while simultaneously publishing many influential papers.

If you want to be corrupt somewhere, academia isn't the place to do it.


RE: Not a problem
By eldakka on 11/29/2011 6:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
The statement:
quote:
FYI there's really no point for "corruption" in academia.


Doesn't gel with the follow on statement:
quote:
Professors get paid like shit, the job is stressful, the hours are long, and maybe 10 or so jobs open up every year for graduating PhD students.


The latter statement is precisely why you get corruption.

If someone is underpaid, it is easier to bribe them. They need the money. They feel they are not being paid what they are worth.

This is one of the arguments for having politicians, presidents and so on being paid a large wage, it is harder to bribe someone (generally speaking) who doesn't need more money.


RE: Not a problem
By Skywalker123 on 11/28/2011 2:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Its cuz we too shtoopid to unnerstan this kinda stuff.


RE: Not a problem
By adiposity on 11/28/2011 1:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what exactly is meant here, but Exchange has a policy that lets you configure how long to wait before permanently deleting items that have been deleted by the user. Default is 30 days. Is this what we are talking about?


RE: Not a problem
By Trisped on 11/28/2011 2:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uh that's not what I said. I said "mail backups".

I do not understand why you would be talking about mail backups when the article only spoke of emails themselves. While I would personally keep backups for longer, I understand many institutions believe it is "safer" to hold them for less time. Still, the point is not about backups, it is about the messages held in people's inbox and their deleting of said messages to hide and obscure knowledge.


RE: Not a problem
By FISHRULE on 11/28/2011 10:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
The editors of this site should stick to reviewing Macbook Airs and iPads instead of participating in global warming denialism.


RE: Not a problem
By mkrech on 11/28/2011 2:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
Why?


Why do you keep posting this bull$*!@?
By tensor9 on 11/28/11, Rating: -1
By mkrech on 11/28/2011 2:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Really? thinkprogress has so much agenda they have to have meetings just to set the agendas for their meetings.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki