The Gray Lady’s Non-Defense of their Climategate Coverage
The New York Times’ Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, has published a much needed, but strangely unsatisfying and contradictory explanation of his newspaper’s coverage (or lack thereof) of the hacked climategate e-mails from the University of East Anglia. Much of his response focuses on answering charges that Times reporter Andrew Revkin was “too cozy” with some of the climate scientists in question when reporting on man’s influence on global warming trends. But in the course of making this argument, Hoyt highlights one tidbit from the emails which should have received a lot more attention.
I read all the messages involving Revkin, and I did not see anything to keep him off the story. If anything, there was an indication that the scientists whom some readers accused Revkin of being too cozy with were wary of his independence. One, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, warned a colleague, Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia, to be careful what he shared with “Andy” because, “He’s not as predictable as we’d like.”
The Public Editor is using this warning from Dr. Mann as an indication that Andrew Revkin isn’t as biased and partisan as some readers suggest, but isn’t there a larger story contained in those last seven words? A scientist pushing the man-made global warming storyline is worried about a New York Times science reporter not being “reliable” enough for them? What that shows me is a scientist who is less interested in publishing his facts and conclusions than he is in winning a political, public opinion battle and his group’s ability to manipulate the media. I’ve seen plenty of concerns about reporters not being “as predictable” as some may like, but they usually come from political operatives trying to win a spin war in the beltway. This smacks of potentially disingenuous media savvy far more than science.
Hoyt does get around to addressing the meta-question related to their coverage, though, in the following introspective paragraph:
The biggest question is what the messages amount to — an embarrassing revelation that scientists can be petty and defensive and even cheat around the edges, or a major scandal that undercuts the scientific premise for global warming. The former is a story. The latter is a huge story. And the answer is tied up in complex science that is difficult even for experts to understand, and in politics in which passionate sides have been taken, sometimes regardless of the facts.
So which type of story is it? On our radio show yesterday, Cindy and I were discussing this very thing and one conclusion seemed clear. When it comes to the scientific method, much as with politics, there is a parallel between this debate and, for example, the beginning of the war in Iraq. Massive intelligence failures there led to incorrect conclusions regarding the facts on the ground. So, if somebody uses that faulty information as a basis for their decisions, were they “lying” or were they just “wrong?”
If climate scientists use a faulty model, collect some bad data, or make errors in their conclusions which they then reveal and account for, they may have just been “wrong.” And there’s no crime in being wrong about something. We’re all human and mistakes happen. That would be, as Hoyt put it, “a story.” But if you’ve collected a body of data which seems to contradict what you’ve been saying all along and you knowingly decide to discard that data and destroy the original test results to hide it, you’re no longer “just wrong.” You’re lying. And that, to quote Hoyt’s criteria, is “a huge story.”
Just to be clear yet again, I don’t count myself in the camp of the so called “skeptics” who say that global warming is a “hoax” or that it’s not happening or man has no influence on the atmosphere and the environment. We affect our world with every action we perform and every breath we take. And I absolutely believe that the planet was going through a warming period in the last half of the 20th century. Perhaps now the Earth is entering a slight cooling period which may or may not continue. I really couldn’t say for sure.
The one thing I am skeptical about is people (on either side) who claim that they do absolutely know all that needs to be known about such a vast and staggeringly complex system as our biosphere. I tend to discount the opinions of those who claim that “the debate is over” or “the science is settled” or “we’ve proven everything,” whether they are claiming that anthropogenic global warming is driving us off the rails or that it’s all a massive ponzi scheme by Al Gore. I think we’re still working on understanding it, as we should be, but clearly we have a lot left to learn. I also want human beings to live as cleanly as possible and disrupt the environment as little as can be managed, while not bankrupting ourselves in the process. But what the climategate story really means to me is that we’ve had some agents in the scientific community who have not been playing by the rules when it comes to the scientific method, and they do no service to either us or themselves if they try to twist a vitally important scientific process into a political parlor game.
62 Responses to “The Gray Lady’s Non-Defense of their Climategate Coverage”
Mr. Hoyt also says:
Jazz, I think your approach toward this is a reasonable one and I'm glad to see you distinguishing between bad behavior among humans and climate science in general. Sadly, a lot of people won't bother to do that and will be inclined to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That said, attitudes on the part of many warming non-believers aren't subject to change anyway, even in the face of a great deal of physical evidence we've been seeing around us, i.e. glaciers melting, ocean conditions changing, etc. The point is often made that the changes that would need to be made to address warming are also changes that are needed to address waste and pollution anyway, so the longterm gains are well worth it in any case. I think it's truly unfortunate that AGW has become such a political football though, since science would ideally trump politics. 1 + 1 should always equal 2 regardless of how much disinformation might come from those who would prefer it to equal 3. The consensus among scientists internationally continues to support the theory of AGW, regardless of how the media plays around with it and regardless of “revelations” that scientists have human foibles and failings like the rest of us.
Here in the Pacific NW the shellfish industry is dying because of Ocean acidification – the ocean has become so acidic that shellfish larvae cannot form shells. We have of course heard a lot about the coral reefs – same issue. One of the errors in some of the models was that the oceans are absorbing more of the CO2 than predicted.
[...] of the New York Times’ coverage of the Climategate scandal, he offers this example (via Jazz Shaw): Why didn’t The Times put the e-mail on its Web site? And, most important, is The Times being [...]
“Scientific consensus” and “settled science” are political terms, not scientific terms. Science is not determined by elections. There is nothing more meaningless in the determination of scientific truth than a “scientific consensus”. A scientific argument stands on its own, regardless of the number of people who initially agree or disagree. When there is disagreement, the integrity of determining the truth is assured through fidelity to the scientific method.
What is clear from the leaked e-mail and code, is that the scientific method at the University of East Anglica Climatic Research Unit was corrupted by political objectives. So now Phil Jones has stepped aside as Director of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit pending an investigation. The UK Met Office has resisted UK government pressure and withdrawn any climate change prediction until they complete a three year review of the source data they shared with CRU.
Well, if the CRU AGW projections don't hold up, at least the scientists there can rest on the legacy of their groundbreaking New & Improved CRU Scientific Method. I was able to reverse engineer the East Anglia CRU Scientific Methodology from the procedures documented in the purloined e-mails and code. It is clear to me that they have built on the work of maverick chemist Theodore Hapner, who revolutionized thinking about the scientific method in 2006.
The biggest benefit of climategate, is that we will now return to the more traditional version of scientific methodology.
JSpenser
You make a logical, coherent argument; except, perhaps, you don't realize that argument is for the skeptical side. Ad hominin attacks by the AGW crowd has been systematic and relentless against anyone questioning AGW. “Deniers” is as worthy as “baby killers” when talking of abortion. Science should not be the realm of political consenes. Scientific papers reviewed by only people who have a stake in the outcome is dubious at best, and actively working to keep descenting papers from publicans is outragious. If Goldman Sacks peer reviewed AIG's quarterly report, would you feel confient in their analysis?
The Emails clearly show conscious efforts to lower past raw data values but not current ones in an attempt to enhance Mann's catestrophic scenario. Quotes show that these efforts were made, and that's why this controversy has earned the “-gate” at the end. Manipulating data to enhance preconceived hypothesis is not science. The IPCC report relied upon the results and data of Mann et al to spawn both Kyoto and Copenhagen. Billions are at stake globally and Mann et al have received millions in grants to further reseach their findings. Those grants would not be forthcoming if results were less dire.
Global temperatures may well be rising, but not in the steady upward arc these guys would have you believe. The computer models all show that steady climb and none forsaw the cooler temps we are now experiencing. If man-made CO2 is the sole cause of this warming, the slackening of ascent means there are other components not understood nor employed in the models. Objectivity and consensus are required in science but not in politics. Consider that the AGW crowd loses much if data contradicts their predictions, so they are more apt to be the ones who “don't seem subject to change anyway.”
It's not like W and the oil henchmen didn't start this skepticism. Bob Watson was replaced with a Bush hack Rajendra Pachauri. The skeptics have ties(like funding for “academic papers”), yet this isn't an issue…
The science and statistics stand on their own, no matter what thye Exxon paid hacks tell us.
Well, I don't have a horse in this race when it comes to desiring a particular stance on AGW. I'd prefer to find out it was bogus, but since the simple truth trumps pro or con for me, my main concern is that the science isn't tainted or politicized to the extent that it becomes worthless. So yes, we've seen some tainting going on here from the proponents, and I'm glad this came out so that it can be discovered for just what it is and isn't. As we know, there's also been a steady campaing of disinformation and denial coming from places that DO have an invested interest in having AGW dismissed regardless of the science so we are seeing bad behavior from all “sides” eh? At any rate, I'm glad it's been brought out so that maybe now there will be a greater effort at accurate and open study and information, which can only be all to the good. I'm sure we'll all stay tuned, but I would be careful not to read too much into this yet. As I said, even without taking global warming into consideration, problems with the environment that are caused by us are serious, real and growing. They can't be dismissed by folks who just might happen to be anti-green out personal self-interest (corporate or otherwise), or ideology or even simple fear for that matter. As I said, I'm sure we will all stay tuned…
JSpenser
“I'm sure we'll all stay tuned, but I would be careful not to read too much into these new “revelations” yet, as they need to be balanced with a great amount of honest work by dedicated scientists who have found reason to believe that AGW is indeed taking place.”
The basis for the AGW starts with Mann's hockey stick and Hansen's dire predictions. Both now have had to “revise” their data because their methods have been found suspect. If the distortion is at the beginning of an investigation, perhaps “consensus” should be looked upon with skepticism.
Understand, temps appear to be rising, albeit, very gradually. Pollution is not only eonomically dubious, it's also ethically so. Skepticism is maybe something you should develop.
Well done article, with a rare balance. I would quibble with only one issue. Although the whole of climate science is not readily understandable to the non-expert, the main issue of concern (when boiled down to its essence) can be understood by anyone; namely, is it acceptable to make predictions of past or future events based on a prediction model you know to be deeply flawed? And then to impugn the integrity and credentials of those that publicly pointed out the flaws?
The only “manipulation” here is the media manipulating the scientist’s intent within these emails. It is the ridiculous “there is no global warming danger” spin from conservatives that has caused these scientists to be over protective of there SCIENTIFIC conclusions. There is no “debate”. There is only fact and those stupid enough to dispute fact for short term political and thus financial gain.
This media “wow” moment failed.
Presumption is maybe something you should un-develop.
Care to elaborate? Your comment is a little vague.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV, Mark Randa. Mark Randa said: Times Non-Defense of their Climategate Coverage http://themoderatevoice.com/55291/the-gray-ladys-non-defense-of-their-climategate-coverage/ [...]
The most interesting thing I have found on this entire issue is how deniers do not deny ocean acidification. It would be difficult to deny since it is eating away at coral and shellfish populations but when I come into contact with deniers they do not deny that. In fact when I say it is a greater danger than GW they fully back me in that statement. Problem is…acidification of the oceans is due to excess amounts of CO2 in the air making it into the water in larger amounts than they predicted it would which they believe has distorted the climate models. So whether or not it has distorted the climate models ocean acidification seems to be an area of a great deal of consensus and it is caused by CO2 so whether we are worried about warming or acidification we are still discussing CO2 problems. The only reason I can think of why deniers deny GW but not acidification is because the talking heads never seem to bring it up which is probably because those trying to fix the problem are not using it as the boogey man that they do with weather change. My guess is that if they start we will also hear denials of ocean acidification as well as discussions of when the ocean had so much acidification in the past and how pretty it was for everyone.
Maybe I have the science wrong but from my view the elephant in the room for the deniers is ocean acidification and not seeing the link to GW just makes them look as ignorant as they are. It is instructive though of the effectiveness of propaganda and the citizenries mistrust of science though. In science once a consensus is reached it is up to those that disagree to make predictions that come true and bring evidence to support their hypothesis, until they do they are no better than the anti-evolution forces that tried to use the Old Testament as scientific evidence against evolution. It matters not if there is a cabal of conspirators on the other side or not, if the evidence supports your hypothesis you win if not you lose. Yes I suppose the evidence can conspire to ruin your theories but we call that the scientific method and maybe those ideas that did not work in reality will work better in a fiction novel.
Mann Made Glowball Warming is based on an AlGore-ithm. That is the only “fact” revealed by the courageous whistleblower . I realize that it makes you very angry and frustrated that the Times is having a hard time spinning this to match the reality floating around in your head, but never fear, the politicians will come up with a fresh new scare shortly, and the Times will again misrepresent the plight of Polar Bears or whatever the new spokes-animal for the New Amish is.
I have been an environmentalist since the early 70’s and have watched the movement slowly be taken over by the extremists who now have full control. I am not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, and find your statement that “there is only fact” and your inference that anyone who disagrees with this unstated “fact” is “stupid” to be an awful condescending statement coming from someone who believes that CO² is pollution. Are you aware that one of the ‘solutions’ they are considering for CO² is dumping sulfur in the atmosphere? Remember how much money, effort, and lost jobs went into scrubbing sulfur from smokestacks? Sulfur Dioxide, unlike CO², is a pollutant.
You also point out that the weather boys across the pond were merely protecting their “SCIENTIFIC conclusions” –which only serves to further magnify your ignorance of the scientific process –but we’re really aren’t talking science, so let’s not pretend we are. Global Warming has always been a political script looking for a select group of ‘scientists’ willing to act it out. These people need to be brought before a court for this gigantic fraud, but as you stated, the “media “wow” moment failed”, so you are now free to tax cow farts like the brilliant greenies across the pond.
For more reading, check out the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research website and read their papers (before they pull them off) going way back before Globall Warming to see how they planned the whole thing. One of the better papers is the one where they call for a name change from Global Warming to Climate Change because despite the media’s best efforts, only true believers were buying into the scam. The media immediately responded….or check out the embarrassing video of Al Gore from a couple days ago when congressman asked him about himself and Enron’s Kenny Lay plotting the whole cap & trade scheme back in the 90’s.
And one final thing. In addition to tax dollars, the big oil companies are funding these people. You gotta laugh at that! You are a SCHILL FOR BIG OIL!!!!!! Whoda thunk……
I see a good deal of emotional populism in your statement but where is your evidence? See that is how science works, when you make up stuff without evidence we call that religion and we can all have our own opinion on it. With science I either disprove it or to call BS on it makes me look like a flat earther(which by the way still do exist). So either wheres the beef or you my sir are a propagandist because you have offered nothing but conspiracy theory stacked on conspiracy theory to support your insults at FT.
I deleted all evidence once I had a consensus. All of my peers agree, so the matter is settled. That is how science works.
Read the emails. Look at the code. And BTW, once a conspiracy is proven, it is not a theory…or does your religion blind you to reality in addition to common sense?
Look for the email from Mick Kelly with the subject Shell . Shell has an International Climate Change team that funds these meteorologists. Not a big deal that they get money from BIG OIL to me, it just makes the constant SCHILL OF BIG OIL diatribe coming from believers sound a bit hollow.
Comedytime: maybe it was hitler behind global warming?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds
No conspiracy has been proven until AGW has been disproven, which it has not as of yet. Are scientists human and are humans bad manipulative people? Of course the answer to both is yes. So is ocean acidification happening or is that a fantasy of the press and fishermen? It is part of GW, in fact one of the issues we can see right now regardless of whether or not the planet warming is an issue and how much or how little it is warming. So I am expected to chuck the science and the ocean acidification because of one email???? Have you ever studied the history of science? Have you read up on Newton and how he pulled stuff exactly like this when he was older and head of the Royal Society? How about when Darwin had to “prove” evolution to get past the scientific consensus at the time that was based off of a literal reading of a work that the religion that created it took as allegory, the Old Testament? Sorry since all of the Tech created by science and the scientific consensus has greatly improved my life and in my opinion the worlds in general I will wait until it is scientifically disproven at which point I will join that side since my rationalizations are based off of science. Also the data is still freely available which is why even many on the right are debunking many of your claims. You may wish to walk away from the magic box you are typing into since it is based off of math and science and is obviously not trustworthy(yea its a straw man and its built just like yours).
I have worked to better the environment through education and research at SF State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus. I think we can do our most important work by fixing wetlands. However I have become increasingly skeptical of CO2 induced warming. I tried to engage Mann’s RealClimate website in debate but often had posts deleted, or have a post attacked and then denied posting any replies. So I know first hand some of these scientists are willing to manipulate the appearance of science.
As a skeptic I see a warming which CO2 probably has some small impact. But I do not think natural variability has been well modeled. And the current warming may be no different than the Mideival warm period. What AGW proponents push is a perception of the hockey stick where climate was stable and slightly cooling and only recently shoots up. It creates an illusion that the Mideival Warm period and Little Ice Age never happened. However their proxies used to create the hockey stick have not withstood the test of time. Their proxies have shown a decline these past 50 years when observation said it has increased. This called into question the hockey stick and is why they felt they “must hide the decline”. The clearest article showing how Jones and Mann tried to misrepresent the past climate and mislead the public by “hiding the decline” has been written by Marc Sheppard. A must read that is well documented! Go to http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understa…
“I will wait until it is scientifically disproven” Man Made Global Warming has never been ‘proven’ in the first place. It is a theory based on politics. Because your “rationalizations are based off of science”, listen to the scientists (the first one is from the Church Of Global Warming – UEA):
University of East Anglia, Professor Mike Hulme, declared Climategate reveals climate science had become ‘too partisan, too centralized.” Hulme, a climate scientist who was listed as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, does not mince words on the magnitude of the scandal.
Hulme has even suggested that the UN IPCC has run its course.
”
“It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures,” Hulme wrote on November 27, 2009
UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita wrote on November 26, 2009 that the three UN scientists at the center of the Climategate storm “should be barred from the IPCC process.”
“Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process,” Zorita wrote. “The scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”
“By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views. Also see: Another UN IPCC scientist speaks out: Prof. Aynsley Kellow says colleagues showed ‘willingness to manipulate raw data to suit predetermined results’ – CBS News
Scandal Widens: University of Arizona prof. Malcolm Hughes (cohort of Michael Mann) told not to destroy questioned climate files
America’s Moment of Clarity: Poll: 59% say it’s likely scientists ‘falsified research data to support their own beliefs about global warming’ — Only 22% consider the UN ‘a reliable source’- ‘This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming data falsification as part of the so-called ‘Climategate’ scandal’
And the list goes on and on. The rats are jumping ship and leaving the few ‘believers’ to argue their dogma for them. Have fun, I love you man…
I've sailed offshore for 20 years. Lived green, solar and wind the whole time. Look it up if you doubt. origamimagic.com. Acidification. The salt in the oceans is a buffer. It neutralizes acids an bases with ease. Been diving all over the world. So long as there is no population nearby the reefs are healthy. Abandoned Japanese and American facilities on coral atols. No sign of ocean encroachment. Storms and weather are no worse now that 20 years ago. Oceans are no warmer. The whole thing is a scam to use pollution fears to take money out of your pockets. Sharpen up that BS detector between your ears and recognize that you are being scammed by some of the best.
Just for the newbies, I'm repeating my take again. Offer a rebate for personal wind/solar/hydro/renewable power generation based on the amount of usable power produced, that is, the amount of electricity that you would not long need to buy.
The point is, most opponents aren't afraid of renewable energy, they're afraid of getting ripped off and being put on the hook for yet another monthly payout for an even higher government tax or corporate profit. Address the fear behind the resistance, and nobody will care what happens in Copenhagen.
Sheople, this is about a 23 year old theory that has the Climate Changers chanting SAVE THE PLANET. That is the issue, not pollution, not waste and not energy. Pollution is real, death by CO2 is not.
From a New York Times Editorial today:
JSpencer should look into sunspots and the Mulder Minimum, it's on Google and maybe, just maybe the nearest star to the planet could have something to do with Global Warming. In the last eleven-year cycle, zero sunspots and that pesky warming thing started to cool down. I'm a skeptic, not a denier or an ideologue. Try checking out ALL the hypotheses, including the most obvious one. Orwell wrote about the Truth staring us in the face. How about the sun providijng ALL the heat except an infinitesmal pct?
Try to wrap your mind around it, JS & fellow true-believers! Man, I love them religious nuts!
I for one are in tune with the French policy of many hydro & nuke facilities, both giving about half the country's energy needs. I lived there & electric bills were sensible. Even if they gouged us every other which way one could think of…
The Times isn't necessarily trying to conceal the scandal, which it obviously is. (It's not a surprise what we already know, that science has been corrupted by politics; it was remarkable to what depths those who took the PC route were willing to stoop, and bad timing right before the silly spectacle hoped for in Copenhagen.) The Times is trying to handle an obvious embarrassment to the liberal activist community (which includes the Times, as a “good” media agent) by gently suppressing it, in the form of avoiding too much attention being paid to it — by treating it somewhat as its Seattle liberal namesake treated the balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution when that was sought in the 1990s, by burying it in the middle of the business section instead of putting it on one of the front pages of the main (general news, national and international news) section. It's no surprise that the scandal would be suppressed, while attacking critics of the PC politicization of science and related energy and economic policy issues.
“Man, I love them religious nuts!”
The most fervent advocates of the global warming PC “psyence” (with heavy associated advocacy of radical and extreme, unwarranted, but familiar lefty, policy “solutions” to the “crisis”) indeed have formed what a good critic has called their “convenient religion” (complete with reconstituted Malthusian apocalyptic Revelations, in addition to their catechism, their celebrity-priests, and their punishment of heretics). A great subject, climatology, has been hijacked and — polluted by this PC political toxin.
“I'm a skeptic, not a denier or an ideologue.”
Most of us aren't. We also aren't so stupid as to be panicked by politics, or stupidly support rash “salvation” measures which in no way follow logically from what mankind is doing to the world, or what it may be doing, in addition to those measures being blatantly political as well as perverse (self-destructive). It's too bad some well-meaning but naive or ignorant people find all the PC-BS convincing.
“So, if somebody uses that faulty information as a basis for their decisions, were they 'lying' or were they just 'wrong?'”
If someone in the media eventually chooses to be as they have been before when “crusading” on behalf of this or that cause, they will (whether because they believe there's nothing wrong with it, or because they are lashing in defensive anger against criticism) say that it doesn't matter if some of the facts are wrong, or if Inconvenient Truths were suppressed, because what matters is to get the “right” message disseminated (i.e,. that mankind has created an imminent catastrophe and we must now take drastic measures to ameliorate if not prevent it…). And that if some things were done that were wrong in order to get the right message to people, that latter greater good atones for what may have been done wrong.
Oops. Make that the “maunder minimum” referring to the “Little Ice Age” from the mid-sixteenth to the end of the seventeenth century when less than 1% of the sunspot activity than normal was the norm and temps froze Europe to the point that the Thames reguarly froze over more than a month each winter and the Dutch invented ice-skates. Canada's National Post in the capital, Ottawa, of a country that depends on ice for its national sport has a much longer story and links for the irreligious skeptics and even open-minded about the issue.
BTW, didn't Jill Abramson appoint an ANONYMOUS Ombudsman after missing so many big stories just a short while ago? We know the NYT hates to be bothered with silly quibbles about overlooking the largest science scandal since the Piltdown Man, but maybe fact-checker Jill might want to publish the Ombudsman's e-mail to avoid having Clark Hoyt constantly apologize insincerely for his paper's indifference to the newsworthiness of Copenhagen's taxing the world that pays taxes to pay Zimbabwe for imaginary air pollution? And not to tax giant polluters like China and India where taxes are hardly ever paid and nobody gives a hoot, except lung-cancer victims in both countrie?
Just asking.
And maybe an Ombudsman with a published e-mail address might lend credibility to a paper that has been losing about 10% of its circulation each year—-while the WSJ just surpassed USA Today with a circulation rising at one percent every six months.
Sorry for so many impertinent questions.
The biggest benefit of climategate, is that we will now return to the more traditional version of scientific methodology.”
I believe, regrettably, that your prediction is too optimistic.
This is a scandal that hasn't been covered up or fully suppressed, as some would have hoped. What a big bummer, just before the political pow-wow at Copenhagen! There's embarrassment and disgrace in the revelations, but that won't be allowed to stop an effort from doing something Meaningful at the big meeting in Copenhagen. High (wildly unrealistic, and worse) hopes had been held for this meeting, and it can't be allowed to be a bust now. Still, the reality is that Copenhagen is going to be subdued, and even if not with the words, I suspect the deeds will have an apologetic nuance to them. (Probably there will be a subdued nature to some of the words, some statements made there, too.) Gee, what a bummer that this scandal has deflated (excess) hopes this month. (Lesson learned: Encrypted e-mail.)
The vast majority of climate research scientists and independent science research agree that there is Global warming, that it has occurred most significantly during the industrial revolution and is most probably caused by man. As well, the last two decades have temperature rises so steep that they cannot be explained naturally and it is unlikely that it can be reversed given current technology.
Your arguments are stupid.
Father_Time
You need to read a little more closely. The global tempature has been rising since the last ice age. That is not in dispute. Mann et al are requiring that that rise is due solelyto man's contribution of CO2, That is what is in dispute.
The Little Ice Age and the Medieval warming periods are examples of variations in that basic trend. Mann et al discuss in their Emails just how to remove the “blips” of historic variation that interfere with their intent by adjusting records cooler in the ocean temps so as to make the warming on land less noticeable.
PS
Your arguments are stupid.
What an intelligent response (for a sixth grader)
If we are being scammed by ocean acidification it is a global conspiracy including oceanographers and many reporters and news orgs all over the world. And all we have to show for this global conspiracy are some emails from GW scientists???? Sorry I have my doubts about your info.
So where in that do you see GW is a giant lie? Oh yea nowhere, this is why I think climategate was a good thing. They will have to do the research all over again in a more transparent manner. I could jump to a giant conclusion that it was all fantasy but that would be a rather giant and conspiratorial leap until the research has been done and the scientists have had their say. Until then GW is the scientific consensus and ocean acidification is linked and is well documented at this time.
For all the Climategate deniers, where is your data or graphs/plots that show AGW is false. All these groups use third party data to produce their models. The code is theire, where are the programmers and statistions showing the error in the code?
Rudi
Consider this for a start:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomm…
Now quick, go find some incriminating evidence against these researchers. Scientific analysis via ad hominem attack is demonstrated in these Emails.
As to the “code,” no model currently in use today successfully predicts TODAY's climate accurately, so the proof of the code is rather moot. If you can't model today, don't be telling me about tomorrow.
Father_Time –only those who get their information from the ManBearPig script for Glowball Warming believe that nonsense. The computer code used to concoct the fraud will make a grocery list spit out a hockey stick. Should we enforce a global tax on grocery lists as well? Is not the taxing of cow farts enough? And for your edifice, very few scientists actually agree with this nonsense, and they are starting to jump ship. Even the crooks at the IPPC have said that the top glowball warming ‘scientists’ should be barred from further participation in the scam. Socialists are notorious for throwing each-other under the bus you know…
And as for the “your arguments are stupid” sentence, well…thank you. I got quite a chuckle. You guys are so cute when you throw tantrums. But unfortunately for you, the sky is only falling on you and the rest of the warmists. Have a great day, I love you man….
Rudi, please follow the story line. They used a phony computer program to fake the results they achieved, then deleted the original data. There are many people discussing haw bad this really is, and if you can comprehend scientists discussing computer algorithms go here and learn:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climatega…
NASA as well as the ‘scientists’ who were just caught red-handed have been busted lying before as well. The temperature stations are hilariously placed over asphalt and the majority are within 10 meters of a heat source. These useless stations are then used to ‘calibrate’ the satellite data. Because the temps were coming in about two degrees too hot, the smoothed the data and ADDED .5° in the process. No fraud here…..if you are a believer.
@HemmD
As to the “code,” no model currently in use today successfully predicts TODAY's climate accurately
The latest meme is about lost data and code. The temperature data doesn't predict climate, just average temperatures for a given data set.
The first two plots from the Frenchmen show a raise in temperature. How does this disprove AGW?
@MBP Hunter
The computer code used to concoct the fraud will make a grocery list spit out a hockey stick.
You make the claim, show where someone found fault with the NA data or generated a hockey stick from a grocery list. Links please…
Having doubts is the best place to start. When people say the debates is
over the science is settled, put your hand over your wallet.
Cause and effect is the issue. The earth has been warming gradually for two
hundred years since the end of the little ice age and as it warmed we
entered a time of increased food supply, prosperity and the industrial
revolution. Prior to that had been a time of hardship and famine.
If you look back in history the trend repeats. Warming cycle brings
increased food and prosperity. Cooling periods result in decreased food
supply and famine. The rise and fall of civilizations follows closely on
this pattern.
So long as there is water, no place on earth, except perhaps volcanoes is it
too hot for life. Many places it is too cold. The warmer the oceans, the
greater the evaporation, the greater the rain. We see this every day in the
tropics in summer, where it rains almost every day, while in winter it
rarely rains.
Not so long ago in history Kings and High Priests sacrificed human beings to
the gods in the certain belief that this would change the weather. They
were just as convinced as the politicians and scientists are now that this
was the answer. As today, anyone that suggested there might be another
reason was drowned out by the crowd. Not due to an active conspiracy,
rather just the nature of how society works.
Do the research for yourself, you will find there are very plausible
alternative explanation for what is being observed. For example, if you
look at the past 100 years you will see that temperature has not risen
steadily with CO2. Excluding heating of the land due to clearing for cities
and agriculture, it has gone up and down in 30 year cycles. The last
heating cycle ended 10 years ago and we will see moderate cooling for the
next 20 years.
Why is that? The most likely reason is orbital mechanics. We know that
solar activity is influenced by the orbit of the planets. NASA has
confirmed this. Solar flares peak when the planets are in line or opposite
the flare. There are many papers showing relationships between the planets
and solar activity. Here is one sample:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5009
There are many other studies, showing ice ages are closely tied to orbital
mechanics and that severe weather on earth is very closely tied to the orbit
of the moon.
We also know that the ice caps on Mars vary in phase with the ice caps on
earth. When this was discovered it was very vocally rejected by AGM
proponents. Why? Occam's razor tells us the cause is likely to be the same
for both. One reason might be that it would tend to refute AGM as the cause
of shrinking ice caps on earth.
The main component of all these studies is that the physical world is in a
constant state of change, because everything that acts upon the world is in
a state of change.
Your immediate ancestors were likely farmers. Before that likely
hunter-gatherers. Your life is only remotely like theirs, yet all of you
have survived.
net
The 11 year cycle of the inner planets co-incides with the 11 year sunspot
cycle.
re and weather on earth peaks flares are The NASA data on solar flares show
thatasa has the center of the sun and the center of the solar system due not
co-incide exactly
we forget that the sun is not the center of the solar system. The center of
the solar system changes due to the orbits of the planets. Why this is
close to the center of the sun,
, and many of these alternative explanations successfully predicted that
Doubt is a good. When someone says the debate is over, the science is
settled, time to put your hand over your wallet.
Science is never settled. Theories come and go. A good theory is measured
by its ability to predict. The current theories on AGM did not predict the
current 10 years halt in warming, nor do they explain why the heating has
occurred first at the surface. If it is truly a greenhouse effect, then the
heating should have occurred first higher in the atmosphere.
Doom and gloom stories sell. They sell newspapers, they sell advertising on
TV and they get scientists grants. Climate scientists that publish papers
showing the earth is doomed by CO2 are currently getting millions in grants.
Scientists that publish studies showing that this is part of a natural cycle
are getting almost nothing. Worse, they are being told to shut up because
they are a direct threat to the large grants being handed out.
The money involved is the corrupting influence which has skewed the debate.
There are three kinds of lies in this world. Lies, dammed lies and
statistics. A lot of AGM is based on statistics.
Check it out for yourself. Climate scientists are currently getting more in
grants than we spend on Aids, Cancer, Malaria, TB. These are huge killers,
while AGM, if it does occur, will be years in the future, giving us plenty
of time to adapt.
No place on earth, except volcanoes is it too hot for life so long as there
is water. There are plenty of places where it is too cold. Rain fall and
food supplies increase with warming. The great civilizations of the past
peaked during times of warming.
One of the ways to visualize what is going on is to look at a school of
fish. They all act for their own self interest. Yet when they move, it is
as though they are a single organism. There is no conspiracy required, yet
they act as one.
I have never seen anything to suggest the oceans are acting the way you
mention. Over fishing and sedimentation from land clearing and development
on land are huge problems. I see evidence of that everywhere. Water
pollution in general is a major issue.
I would expect CO2 to come out of solution as the oceans warm from the
little ice age 200 years ago. This could be what is being measured, or that
the measurements are mostly taken near cities and what is actually being
measured is pollution. In any case I don't see evidence of problems one you
get away from concentrations of population.
For example: I was diving not so long ago in Puerto Galera, Philippines.
This is one of the few protected areas that has not been fished with
dynamite or drag nets. The corals were still healthy, fish everywhere. If
you get a chance to go I highly recommend this spot.
Drag nets are everywhere killing the seabed. 70 years ago the Sea of Cortez
was fished for shrimp with drag nets. Millions of tons were harvested in a
few years and the fishery collapsed. The shrimp never came back and the
rusting hulks of the shrimp boats line the beaches for miles. If this
happened today it would be blamed on AGW.
The idea that we are going to save the planet by putting a huge tax on
carbon, this is a money grab. A swindle to pay for relocating polluting
industries from rich countries to poor to save $$. The companies involved
don't want to pay to clean up their act, so they have come up with a way to
get us to pay for them to move. At the same time they will get cheaper
labor and cheaper land. Billions have already been spent in these subsidies
as a result of Kyoto, displacing the poor off their land and polluting their
environment.
_____
Then of course you should be really happy with these developments since we will have to do the research again and this time be more open about it…which is why I am happy as well. I understand that you are actually just trying to convince me as ManBear Pig is as well but science is not an issue I nor any rational human can be “convinced” of. It is either proven by peer reviewed science, it is not, or like in this case errors or human manipulation may have taken place in which case it needs to be re-investigated. As far as ocean acidification goes it has been widely reported over the last 4-5 years or so by news organizations and documentarians. I currently live on a coast so coverage may be dependent on how close you are to the ocean but I am not sure on that. It is possible that the BBC and the other outlets including PBS documentarians are part of a global conspiracy but I have major doubts about that. It is even possible that its cause is something other than CO2 as part of GW but that is how it has up to this point been explained. You may not have seen these effects but I failed to see many inner city problems when I was living in major cities that does not mean it is not true or non-existent but that I did not witness it myself. I do not fear GW, I fear ocean acidification because that is something that is much more dangerous to humanity than a hot planet. This is why coral in many areas are dying though, who knows though maybe its spray cans or some funky kind of chemical but I am sure you support investigating the issue and having good sound science on the issue before we jump to conclusions, otherwise you are doing what the scientists are accused of that caused climategate which is to have a conclusion and then try to find something that supports your pre-conceived conclusion. Another thing to keep in mind when debating me at least is that it will not really affect my prices all that much. I do not drive, I walk or bike to work(because oil prices are untrustworthy and can be a heavy financial burden), my produce and food is grown locally and I buy directly from organic farmers that do not use petro based fertilizers. In other words I have prepared very well for any cost increases because I lived through the last 9 years and realized the oil economy would likely get worse instead of better and with or without GW that is still the case(hello peak oil). So again, lets do the science and the research and resolve this question, unless that is you have a predetermined result that may not match with what is found, I do not as I do not really care I just support peer reviewed science and its findings until they are disproven since that has allowed our society to advance to our current level of technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
If you read nothing else, read this Newsweek article from 1975
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
Then compare the graph with what you are seeing “published” today. The data
has been manipulated to hide the cooling from 1945 to 1975, which makes it
look like current temperatures are abnormally high.
_____
Do not get me wrong I see why an environmentalist would want to fight GW, if it is true we will need to use Nuclear energy which they have fought for 30 years. So it makes sense but I think it is short sighted.
I appreciate the original post, but I don't know that I agree with the interpretation of the 7 words in question. If anyone here is a scientist doing work interesting enough to get published in a newspaper, you know how frustrating it is to watch your work and your conclusions get distorted in ways entirely unsupported by and at times in direct conflict with the findings. As someone who is weary everytime I read something in a paper where the conclusion they're trying to sell doesn't come directly from the scientists' quotes, I took the statement to mean something different than Jazz's conclusion that the scientists were trying to “cover up” something.
Actually the global cooling issue never made it through the peer reviewed process and was quickly debunked.
Coral bleaching occurs when water heats rapidly and one species of coral is
replaced with another, because some corals do better in warmer water than
others. However, in general there are almost no cold water corals. Coral
likes warm water and are likely to spread towards the poles with GW.
A big problem for corals is over fishing, which removes the coral eaters
from the reef – such as parrot fish. Unless the coral is constantly being
grazed the reef gets overgrown with algae, sponges, etc. and dies.
Since CO2 is a major building block of reefs and shell fish and it has in
the past been significantly higher than present levels it seems very
unlikely that life hasn't evolved a mechanism to deal with the issue.
The most likely scenario seems to me that some species will do better with
increased CO2 and some will not do as well. Those that don't do as well
will be out competed for available food by those that do.
I remember reading somewhere that 90% of the mass of sea animals is jelly
fish, and 90% of the mass of land animals is worms. I've never confirmed
this but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.