• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Yeah, well I don't think he has blinders on, nor a tin foil hat. Simply put, he is a partisan and he has something to sell you. The only thing he is interested in when you present an argument or an opinion that doesn't neatly fit his preferred world view is to attack it and attempt to discredit it or you as the messenger. It's what Democrats and Republicans do generally and contributes to the noise level here at DP. That's why I am a Whig.
Good for you and you'll not find me in disagreement with you about what goes on in general here at DP and on other forums. Only you should add IMO, it is what rabid partisans who deal only in ideology do.
 
Good for you and you'll not find me in disagreement with you about what goes on in general here at DP and on other forums. Only you should add IMO, it is what rabid partisans who deal only in ideology do.

Yeah, sorry, I was kinda general when I said Democrats and Republicans. You are right to clarify that it is rabid partisans.
 
I believe NASA's data, I just don't subscribe to their conclusions, if their conclusions are that a) global warming is occurring and b) it is caused by human activity, AGW. I am more likely to believe claims about A than B, but my point was that we don't have an absolute picture that it is happening. We need to do more science.
You have the right to hold that opinion as I may find it arrogant. Why would you be more qualified then NASA? Can't you see our obligation to exclude B?
 
You have the right to hold that opinion as I may find it arrogant. Why would you be more qualified then NASA? Can't you see our obligation to exclude B?

According to reports of the content of these emails from the CRU, they falsified data that result in corruptions to one of the world's temperature datasets and acted closely in league with their American counterparts who compile GISS/NCDC data. The real data show we have been cooling for the last 9 years.

Pajamas Media Viscount Monckton on Climategate: ‘They Are Criminals’ (PJM Exclusive)

If NASA's data is wrong, their conclusions are wrong. If B is still included but found to be such a minor contributing factor, then nothing should be done.
 
[...]

If we do accept them as authentic, though, they truly are incendiary. They appear to reveal not one, not two, but three real scandals, of increasing importance.

  • The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.
See for example emails 1047388489, 1256765544, 1255352257, 1051190249, 1210367056, 1249503274, 1054756929, 1106322460, and 1132094873. Also see email 1139521913, in which the author discusses how the comments at RealClimate.org are moderated to prevent skeptical or critical comments from being published. RealClimate advertises itself as a scientific blog that attempts to present the “real case” for AGW.
  • The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.
See for example emails 0938018124, 0843161829, 0939154709 (and the graphic here), and 0942777075 (and the discussion here).
  • The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.
See for example emails 1106338806, 1228330629, 1212063122, 1210367056, and 1107454306 (again!).

Email 1107454306 is particularly interesting. In it, Dr Jones writes:

The two MMs [McKittrick and McIntyre] 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.

What makes this interesting is that the CRU, in later years, announced that they had “inadvertently deleted” their raw data when they responded to an FOIA request from … McIntyre.

Now, I’ve purposefully not included much of the text from these emails, both for reasons of space and because I want people to read them for themselves. But, at least on this first look, it appears that the three scandals are:

  • First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices. (For another look at this, by a respected climate scientist who was one of the targets, see these posts on Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog.) This is at best massively unethical.
  • Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case. This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud. This, if it proves true, should make these scientists subject to strong disciplinary action, even termination of their tenured positions.
  • Third, what gives every appearance of an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK. If this is proven true, that is a federal crime.
These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW. Is the data really valid? Has the data been effectively peer reviewed and have attempts to falsify been fairly treated? Is CO2-forced AGW really the best hypothesis?

Until these questions are answered, the various attempts to “deal with the climate change crisis” have no acceptable scientific basis.

Pajamas Media Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean?
 
Awesome.

The records show the world is warming.

Yet a few taken out of context private emails stolen from one organization is going to not only "rebuff" the evidence of thousands of our worlds brightest minds, who, without any doubt believe in man-made global warming, but also shed doubt on the growing evidence.

Please. :doh
 
Awesome.

The records show the world is warming.

Yet a few taken out of context private emails stolen from one organization is going to not only "rebuff" the evidence of thousands of our worlds brightest minds, who, without any doubt believe in man-made global warming, but also shed doubt on the growing evidence.

Please. :doh
And another AGW DP regular pops up to ignore the story and try to wish it all away by calling it a few "private emails." With that kind of intellectual honesty on display, who do you expect to persuade here Middelground, other than the usual DP AGW echo chamber?

Really, what pay off does a gal like you get from acting so dishonestly and frankly foolishly?
 
Awesome.

The records show the world is warming.

Yet a few taken out of context private emails stolen from one organization is going to not only "rebuff" the evidence of thousands of our worlds brightest minds, who, without any doubt believe in man-made global warming, but also shed doubt on the growing evidence.

Please. :doh

If they believe it "without any doubt", then they are not true scientists to begin with. If they were, they wouldn't believe something "without a doubt" if it was impossible to prove and had not been proven.
 
If they believe it "without any doubt", then they are not true scientists to begin with. If they were, they wouldn't believe something "without a doubt" if it was impossible to prove and had not been proven.

Hmmmmmm.... that was tough to figure out your gist.

Look, there are signs everywhere that the world is warming. That is without doubt. What is still fairly unclear is how much of it is attributed to CO2. That is what we should be discussing. Not personal and private emails between individuals who probably didn't even make it through the spell checker.
 
Hmmmmmm.... that was tough to figure out your gist.

Look, there are signs everywhere that the world is warming. That is without doubt. What is still fairly unclear is how much of it is attributed to CO2. That is what we should be discussing. Not personal and private emails between individuals who probably didn't even make it through the spell checker.

What is the relevance if they are personal or private??

What is the relavance if they went through the spell checker.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep it civil. No more personal attacks.
 
Do you ever have a point?

Here we are, several pages later, and nothing substantial about the emails has been shown, thus proving my label of 'horse****' correct.

And yes, to be a GW denier you have to believe every scientific organization is somehow complicit in a vast worldwide conspiracy.

As I said, I go by science's best evidence...I'm not dogmatic. I would love nothing better for someone to prove all the mountains of evidence are wrong and that it doesn't matter how much co2 we pump into the atmosphere. But until then, it is the height of arrogance, selfishness, and stupidity for us not to try and drastically change our ways for future generations.

AGW-theory is based upon nothing more than a rise in global temperatures that correlates with a rise in global CO2 levels. Not exactly what I would call "mountains of evidence".
 
AGW-theory is based upon nothing more than a rise in global temperatures that correlates with a rise in global CO2 levels. Not exactly what I would call "mountains of evidence".

If this is exemplary of the level of understanding of the denialist faction, we may have stumbled upon the source of the problem.
 
Hmmmmmm.... that was tough to figure out your gist.

Look, there are signs everywhere that the world is warming. That is without doubt. What is still fairly unclear is how much of it is attributed to CO2. That is what we should be discussing. Not personal and private emails between individuals who probably didn't even make it through the spell checker.

Okay, let's discuss it then. How much of the warming is attributed to CO2? In your analysis, be sure to account for all possible confounding variables, of which there are literally billions; for instance, make sure the sun's affect on global temperatures is held constant in your explanation.

Looking forward to it!
 
Last edited:
If this is exemplary of the level of understanding of the denialist faction, we may have stumbled upon the source of the problem.

I noticed you did not dispute the factual basis of my assertion and chose instead to make an irrelevant and insulting comment. We may have stumbled upon the source of the problem, it seems...:lol:
 
Okay, let's discuss it then. How much of the warming is attributed to CO2? In your analysis, be sure to account for all possible confounding variables, of which there are literally billions; for instance, make sure the sun's affect on global temperatures is held constant in your explanation.

Looking forward to it!


I'm not a scientist, so it's not my analysis. :confused:

There's plenty out there to read. I'll send you some links if your interested.
 
I'm not a scientist, so it's not my analysis. :confused:

There's plenty out there to read. I'll send you some links if your interested.

I hope they didn't rely on CRU data.
 
What is the relevance if they are personal or private??

What is the relavance if they went through the spell checker.

It's not science... it's correspondence between people. Correspondence that was stolen from people that obviously have an agenda. Are you comfortable with the fact that this "evidence" has been presented without alteration? Are you comfortable in the knowledge that none of it was cherry picked and taken out of context? Do you not find it odd that only approximately 1000 emails have been retrieved in about 13 years?

Hmmmmm.....
 
Who said? :confused:

Scandal Rocks Global Warming Establishment | CEI

Washington, D.C., November 20, 2009—Scientists engaged in major global warming research and data collection have waged and discussed an internal smear and data manipulation campaign targeting critics of catastrophic global warming predictions. This was revealed when unknown hackers this week broke into the database of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—an academic institution that has for decades compiled raw climate science data. The CRU, embroiled in another recent scandal after it admitted deleting much of its raw data, has since acknowledged the authenticity of the hacked e-mails.

Statement by Myron Ebell, CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy

The posting of private data files from the Climatic Research Unit in England reveals the sleazy, unseemly side of a number of the leading scientific proponents of global warming alarmism, including CRU Director Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth. It is clear that some of the “world’s leading climate scientists,” as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position.

Anyone who assumed that these so-called scientific authorities in the debate were providing the straight scientific facts is going to have to think again. We have argued for many years that much of the scientific case for global warming alarmism was weak and some of it was phony. It now looks like a lot of it may be phony.
 
Last edited:
Who said? :confused:
Says the same person who just claimed over 1,000 emails equals "a few.":thinking

I can't imagine any data or facts that you have ever been exposed to or ever will be exposed to, that would cause you to even stop and consider your position, based on a few years observation. In fact on the internet, I've yet to see one pro AGW poster even muster up the courage to admit there has ever been anything in dispute.

Meanwhile that approach to the debate has lead to a dwindling of public confidence in the AGW theory and as a consequence their support for AGW based legislation. So I think it best those in agreement with you keep acting and flinging labels and derision on AGW skeptics, like "good science" Joe, because that is really really working out for you guys.:mrgreen:
 
Says the same person who just claimed over 1,000 emails equals "a few.":thinking

Nice omission of... ahem, 13 years. That's less than 100 per year. At my workplace, I get about 40-50 a day, and I'm not really that important.
 
Back
Top Bottom