Oh, but don't you know? You're the one claiming it's a right-wing hatchet job. Shouldn't you know what the proper context is so you can correct all the ignorant people in denial? I guess you kinda skipped over that part and went straight to acting like you knew.

What is your argument anyway, of defending a person you don't know for making statements you weren't aware of?

So now your true argument is that quotes are cherry-picked and out of context, but you don't know the proper context, but somebody else with a website might. Well stop the fucking investgation immediatly the case has been cracked by Clockcat and his anonymous blogger.

 http://mediamatters.org/research/200911240017

 

Oh look.

 

---

Fact: Climate experts agree with NASA scientist on emails: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way"

 

---

 

 

 

See how this works now? Rather than talking about the emails you just want to talk about opinions on the emails or the people in charge.

Way to project!

 

If it doesn't work, change the subject. Find another email to extrapolate. THERE WILL BE OUTRAGE!

 

Seriously. Show context or don't show it at all. Quote mining is boring for everyone.

All you did was post a link to a blog written by a guy you agree with, even though you don't seem to be exactly sure what you agree with him about.

 

Hmm? Where did you gather that from? Really curious.

I read the emails and computer code. I'm the one who posted them here so I don't need to refer to anyone else.  I just wanted to show everyone that instead of addressing a simple question which only takes one post you would dodge for an entire page. And to be honest I don't blame you. It's difficult to make something like that seem legitimate without compromising your own credibility.

Contrary to what you might think I have looked into these groups. I read the reports and white papers they make public, not because I find it interesting of course but because billions of euros are being poured into them and they have an enormous and sometimes deleterious effect on public policy.  Obviously you have some apocalyptic belief that you cannot be easily dissuaded from and a dichotomous view of the world where everyone is either a liberal or a lying conservative who hates science and the earth. No offense but I'd rather not delve into that which is why I was talking about the statements that these people are making. If you feel like you adequately addressed the issue then fine, let the peanut gallery decide. I woulld like to remind you however that the veracity of a claim is not dependent on its epistemic origin and no matter who is on the other side of an issue, it could be Hitler's zombie, it's in no way an indication that you are right. 

Are you an idiot, an asshole or both? The evidence was posted, but you dismiss it because it doesn't coincide with your version of truth, so kiss my ass.

I'm going to post this just for the sake of doing so and wait for you guys to talk trash because it appears that's all you're interested in doing.

Awww, is ums upset?

I've not seen any evidence to dismiss.

I'm sure you're a handsome and straping fellow, but I don't swing that way. Sorry.

Trash talk... This is about climate change, not waste management!

I forgot to post the link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

And DF, evidence has been posted but you're too busy talking shit to look. And no, ums isn't upset, whatever that is. And I don't know what a "straping" fellow is, but if I don't know what it is than I'm probably not one.  I'm still waiting for you and Clockpussy to bring something other than shit talk to the table.

 

You have to stop being such a joke first to expect anyone to stop laughing and take you seriously.

 

Really. That video? Hahahahaha. "Why would CO2 start warming the earth now? It never did in the past!"

 

"The Great Global Warming Scandal". Fantastic sensationalism.

Primary sources, please. A propaganda video doesn't count as evidence.

Riiiiggght. Sure.

Ums seemed upset. Ums was cursing and calling me names. Now ums is unsure. Poor ums, so ficle.

strap⋅ping
1 
 /ˈstræpɪŋ/ [strap-ing] –adjective
1.     powerfully built; robust.
2.     large; whopping.

Like my links to evidence? Yeah, evidence is the new trash-talk!

Call me conservative all day long (I'm actually a leftist) as long as you don't address that nagging little issue of Phil Jones talking about manipulating the peer-review process, having people who disagree ousted, and deleting data in a FOIA request.

That's all you got? It's not quite clear. Nothing more than that?

You're not fucking this guy are you?

OMG TYPO! You're such an awesome debater.

And "alternative" scientific views require evidence. EVIDENCE. There's no use considering an "alternative" view just because someone has one, they also have to have the evidence to back it up.

Remember not to shove your fingers in your ears too deeply, lest you do yourself damage.

By the way, you may refer to me as "Mr. Fingergun"

Here's the deal kiddo. Evidence was provided, you just choose to ignore it, and that becomes your problem not mine. And I don't give a damn about being an "awesome debater". There's no debating a fucking brick. You have no interest in evidence contrary to your own belief on the issue. And I wont be referring to you as "Mr." anything, because I wont be referring to you at all, I'll be busy with my fingers in my ears. Clown

Well, I didn't get to clean it up because you replied before I could edit, but here it is cleaned up.

 

I'm curious exactly what you are outraged over here. The reliability of some instruments and data? That they have to watch their words and publications because of contrarians? What they think about their publication, and whether their conclusions are correct or not? Worried about personal protection, and ownership of things like Tom Wigley's model code? Saying he would delete data that is available to other climatologists if the two "MMs" filed FOIA for it? Discrepancies between them and the NCDC? 

 

I'm assuming it's going to be the deleted thing because that is what you quote mined. In perspective though, I don't really see the big deal. The data would have been things they compiled, not actual recordings from stations. It hasn't vanished anyplace.

The worst that could be said is their model might have had problems. Other groups made their own models though using meteorological data. Conclusions are still close to unanimous that global warming is an issue. The media misrepresents things to sensationalize them. If you pay attention to only that and don't read into the stories, you won't be getting a lot of accuracy about anything but outrage caused by something.

 

Also, whether you are conservative or not is irrelevant. You are parroting conservative outrage right from the conservative media sources. That is all I am pointing out.

 

 

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>

To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: For your eyes only

Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005

 

Mike,

It would be good to produce future series with and without the long

instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long

measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least

back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key

warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg

reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all

years are cold between 1500 and 1750.

Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago - on the panel to

consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).

Cheers

Phil

Cheers

Phil

At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:

 

Thanks Phil,

Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future

what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory

so that Tim could access the data.

Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going

to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights

issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.

I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor

comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/

the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe

they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...

Will keep you updated on stuff...

talk to you later,

mike

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

 

Mike,

I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better

this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is

trawling

them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear

there

is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than

send

to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within

20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also

have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried

email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He

has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant

here,

but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere

to it !

Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if

you are.

Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,

Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it

getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the

right

emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be

the

main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It

seems

the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's

series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,

so will keep you informed.

Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert

by GRL statndards.

Cheers

Phil

At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:

 

Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn

State next Fall.

I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan

to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you

updated,

Mike

 

"alternative scientific views?" 

 

Oh yes, there are people here very open to that. Luminon is one.
 

 

Did I say I was arguing for what he should or should no be able to do? Do I need to repeat myself again that I am in no way defending him? I am simply pointing out that this "lynchpin" you seem to think destroys all data that shows global climate change is reality, is a farce.

 

Wow. 

 

And yes, the RAW DATA you seem so worked up over as claiming to have been "DELETED", is what was discarded when they moved. Copies sent to them from various meteorological stations..you know, where the recordings happen. And are kept.

They took the data and formatted it, and discarded faulty data and data that showed artificially high temperatures due to urban warming. Is that so hard to understand? Do you see why it has no bearing then as any "disproof" of global warming?

 

Honestly, I'm not blaming you for anything here but falling for the conservative media outrage trap. Whether he committed a crime or not has no bearing on global climate change. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't appear clear if he even committed a crime, let alone claimed he would, what he said in the email along with relations to what is being spoken of it very vague. I'm not entirely aware of how the information act in the UK works with this. Are you?

 

You miss the entire point and are getting tied up in details about a man that discarded copies of old unformatted unusable data that is still available, while at the same time exclaiming global warming is a hoax. Even if he was found guilty of murdering puppies and smearing their blood across old files, it wouldn't have any bearing on climate change. Even if he DID somehow modify ALL of the data in secret, it wouldn't have any bearing on climate change. It is just one organisation out of many that are involved in it, and they all have open access to the original data. 

 

If there were any modifications that were inappropriate internally, it is easily findable and checkable. With the investigation underway, it undoubtably will be done. I'm not concerned. I'm also not outraged. I'm perfectly fine with it. I think he overreacted to fringe nuts trying to constantly shut down studies over political reasons, like the discovery institute extrapolating things out of data that aren't true in order to spread misinformation. If it turns out to be more than that, I'm not bothered by it.

 

I've seen no proof that mankind has no influence on his environment, and a lot to the contrary. So, unless someone provides evidence that our influence is negligable or nonexistant, I'm afraid I'm going to have to think of mankind as accountable for it's actions.

 

But I hope it's not. I'd rather have egg on my face than have to deal with the alternative. I think we agree that whatever is causing it, climate is more extreme than it used to be

and icecaps and glaciers are demonstrably melting?

In my life my country has never been so dry for so long and the data (which admittedly is only a hundred or so years old) shows an increase in temperatures nationally that's accelerating. 

Of our hottest years in 100 years three quarters are in the last decade. As far as your position is concerned I have plenty of friends who do believe in warming and many others who decry it. Maybe the science is bad.

But mate, whichever is true, we are certainly devastating ecosystems and obliterating many of the most beautiful natural wonders of the planet. I was in the carib recently on a diving holiday and

the reef where we were was bleached and beaten to bits. Fish - nearly zero. The bleaching is caused by the water being too hot for the coral. Our Great Barrier Reef is badly effected - especially in the north.

Closer to the coast the great barrier reef's skeleton is buried in silt and algae - there is no more reef. A vast and complex ecosystem tens of thousands of years old slaughtered to grow sugar the world doesn't need.

Why do I give a shit? Because it happens to be the world's largest living organism.

At home we are in our 10th year of devastating drought, our central river systems are at about 10 per cent capacity and we have regional towns that have run out of water. It gets trucked in. Our biggest

river no longer reaches the sea and the enormous wetlands it supported are in the final stages of dying. That includes bird sanctuaries and a plethora of freshwater creatures found nowhere else on earth.

Same as in the US, huge aquifers that have supported decades of intensive farming, are drying up, and our most fertile regions are now poisoned with salt.

CSIRO, which is our government research lab says this is the worst drought in the past 1000 years - they may be wrong - who knows.

It's negative of me but I don't think anything much will be done about addressing the issues until it's too late. That's the human way. We'll go ahead and beat the shit out of our life support system

in the same old short-sighted way we always have. Really, fuck global warming and whether or not it's true. I don't give a single shit. But let's look after our only, ever planet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/ns/technology_and_science-science/

I take most conspiracies with an open mind, because history has shown many of them to be true, along with false flag attack. Obviously some are more far fetched than others, but there are a few that need to be considered. Just my opinion.

I have no idea what this thread is about.  Well, I've seen the exchanges about the stolen and leaked emails from the CRU.  The thing is, the emails are embarrassing, but they don't remotely hint at anything that isn't anything other than embarrassing.  They would have to be taken in a completely skewed context to even resemble the things which they've been said to.  I haven't read or heard anything from any professional scientist, sceptic or rationalist that agrees that the emails represent the vast collusion of the people involved to wilfully, with malicious intent, skew, manipulate, obscure, delete, ignore, boycott or otherwise tamper with information in any way other than in ways in which information of this sort is normally handled.  The emails do not seem to represent the unearthing of some conspiracy within the CRU to handle information in ways even approaching questionable. 

Imagine the emails in the context of evolutionary biologists discussing what to do with certain information pertaining to evolution in the face of creationists or IDers.  They might be embarrassing (no one expects what they say in private to go public, especially when it may be misunderstood), but they would hardly represent a conspiracy to undermine a legitimate opposition to evolution.  And it's important to note 'legitimate', because as creationists and IDers are not legitimate opposition to evolutionary science, the science of climate change is quite as well founded and 'deniers' are not legitimate opposition -they clearly have an ideological and political agenda and nay-saying does not represent evidence in their favour.  Much like evolutionary science, the science of climate speaks for itself.

What will happen, of course, and it should happen, is that the data collected by the CRU is going to be released so that it can be looked over by other organizations and independently verified.  Of course, since the stuff is published in peer-reviewed journals, it is peer-reviewed and the data attached to those articles and papers will be there for verification already.  Further to the conspiracy nonsense surrounding this, is that the CRU does not represent the only agency which has collected the kinds of information it has or does and it certainly doesn't represent the only publisher of that information.  Even if the CRU was involved in some conspiracy to intentionally mishandle and, essentially, fudge information for their own agenda (whatever that might be), it could hardly be called a blow to the science of climate change.

I was under the impression that this site was populated by rational and properly sceptical atheists (with the odd nutter), I must have been mistaken because I see crazy all over this thread.

Oh, and before I was quoted and my editing privilege denied by the Cat:

Mhmm!  Yes!  And creationists are right; evolution is so wrong.  My response isn't negative, it's just that your opinion warrants as much derision as creationists deserve.  No, no, continue to defend your opinion all you like.  It's not like you actually know anything in depth about the science of climate change or evolution.  Or wait, you really don't do you?  Neither do I, but I do know how to read scientific journals -I'm a scientist of a different sort, of course, but I can read and I can even appreciate the scientific method enough to trust that the science of climate change makes quite a good case for what we're calling global warming (incidentally the same is true for evolution, but we'll just gloss over that inconvenient example).  You're falling into exactly the same thing that makes creationists laughable.  The irony is almost palpable.  You opinion is ignorant drivel.  The same goes for any other ill-informed 'denier' twaddling on about stuff they don't know or don't understand. 

Until and unless there is presented an opposing theory which takes the vast sets of data and studies already done and shows evidence to the contrary of what has already been found, what we have in 'deniers' is exactly what we have in creationists: a bunch of ideologically and politically motivated (or woefully ignorant) people presenting absurdity and nonsense as a viable alternative to a science that is established and, as far as the evidence is concerned, the best representation of reality that we have.  And I really hope the comparison is striking, because it is so blatantly obvious and I think that any rational or sceptical person who has been hood-winked into believing that the controversy over climate change is real within the scientific community is as ignorant as the creationist that thinks the same of evolution and should feel properly ashamed of herself upon realisation of such.

Well, I didn't realize that you and I go way back and you can tell me what the fuck I know about anything. You guys can soak this shit up all you like, but the evidence I've seen shows otherwise. And don't tell me what the fuck I do and don't know or understand. Just about every one of you here can kiss my ass. You're all a bunch of intolerant pricks who need to step off your fucking high horses. Call me an ill informed denier if you like, but I think you're an ill informed supporter. I don't give a shit either way. I'll take my drivel elsewhere, because frankly, I can't understand how people can tolerate half of you arrogant pricks.