• 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'?

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, it appears to be.



If you would add some proper reading comprehension, you'll see that the scientist was pointing out a way to solve a problem, not manipulation of evidence.

Explain the phrase "to hide the decline".

Note and explain that they did not use the phrase "explain the decline", no. They were deliberately colluding on ways to disguise actual trends, trends that falsified the theory of AGW.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've lost faith in science.

NO, there's nothing wrong with science.

Abandon your misplaced faith in the Left.

They're all frauds and conmen, and their Global Warming nonsense was only one of the weapons they've forged to dominate your mind.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you do that.

In the meantime, I have a question. If you had a sick child and 99 doctors diagnosed the same disease and told you how to cure it, why would you listen to the one doctor who said don't bother?

Because the 99 Global Warming "doctors" demanding the destruction of your national economy to save the child have bones in their noses and they're burning frogwort in an old elephant's bladder hanging from a tree waiting for the light from the rising sun to strike it, and the one doctor who disagrees says the child is simply exhibiting normal temperature variations and that the sky isn't going to fall.

I'll go with the one doctor, thank you.

Science isn't done by consensus, the evidence that AGW is nothing but a fraud has come out.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So there really is no good argument for the deniers. I have much more respect for those that accept the science but disagree on how best to deal with the problem.


The science says there isn't a problem.

More specifically, the science says man isn't influencing global climate.

ALL the AGW theories contend that increased CO2 levels means increased surface temperatures.

Well, we're at the end of a DECADE of COOLING combinedwith a decade of monotonically increasing CO2 levels. AGW says this isn't possible. In fact AGW didn't predict any cooling at all.

AGW is dead.

The science killed it.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.

No.

There were signs the world WAS warming.

Now the signs are the world IS cooling.

That is without doubt.

What also exists without doubt is that the researchers whose jobs and careers depended upon foisting their global warming hoax on the rest of us callously and deliberately engaged in fraud to promote their private agenda.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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".

Yeah. Since we are currently experiencing a rise in CO2 levels and a decline in temps, it's pretty obvious AGW is wrong.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not science... it's correspondence between people.

It's correspondence between people telling each other how best to lie and deceive and warnings to hide or destroy evidence.

That's about the science, and it's about their admissions to each other that their science is false.

Correspondence that was stolen from people that obviously have an agenda.

Yes, the people that wrote the documents had an agenda.

That the documents had to be jacked is evident, since the authors wouldn't want their confessions of deceit and incompetence to become public, now would they?

Other than that, that the documents were hacked isn't relevant to the debate over what those documents say.

Are you comfortable with the fact that this "evidence" has been presented without alteration?

Well....

....I guess the entire computer archives at Hadley should be locked down, isolated, and searched, bit by bit, and all incriminating documents published when those hoaxers go to trial.

....but for the most part, since the "science" the hoaxers have been trying to force down our throats isn't consistent with observed facts, the contents of those hacked documents is most likely correct.

Are you comfortable in the knowledge that none of it was cherry picked and taken out of context?

Since entire e-mails are shown, not bare quotes, it's hard to miss the proper context.

As for "cherry picked", do you mean they didn't waste our time posting up e-mails from one hoaxer to the other about Sarah Palin's black love child in Harlem?

Do you not find it odd that only approximately 1000 emails have been retrieved in about 13 years?

Nope, not at all.

They've found more e-mails than Al Gore was able to recover from his time at VP.
 

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1998 was a local maximum. That hardly means that there is not a positive trend

screenshot20091125at143.png


There was a local maximum in the 60's as well, and one with an obvious source in the 40's. Few real world trends are strictly increasing or decreasing. Global temperatures are no exception, and this does not detract from the fact that the trend is real and positive
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
1998 was a local maximum. That hardly means that there is not a positive trend

screenshot20091125at143.png


There was a local maximum in the 60's as well, and one with an obvious source in the 40's. Few real world trends are strictly increasing or decreasing. Global temperatures are no exception, and this does not detract from the fact that the trend is real and positive

You are half right.... the trend is positive.

The question is, especially with the release of these documents, is whether the positive trend is real or manufactured.
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here are 2 examples:


From the hacked email:

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.

Ok, seriously? Did you read the e-mails? Sonia Boehmer Christiansen, who is, it seems, a professor emeritus, sent out an e-mail in which she admitted that she isn't qualified to judge what she's talking about, but then went on to, evidently, support ClimateAudit, and use her status as a professor emeritus at the University of Hull to lend credibility to her arguments. This email was brought to the attention of Phil Jones, a climatologist. Jones was offended by the dishonesty of the content of the e-mail, and brought the matter up to Graham Haughton, a professor at the University of Hull, to inform him of the misrepresentation of the facts, inform him that SB-C is using her affiliation with University of Hull as a credibility prop, and state his opinion that "science should be undertaken through the peer-review literature as it has been for over 300 years. The peer-review system is the safeguard science has developed to stop bad science being published."

In short, he seems to be informing a colleague of the situation. He clearly feels that the original e-mail was inappropriate, and is questioning whether University of Hull wants to be associated with such things.

I seem to recall similar questions over William Dembski's use of his affiliation to Baylor University, when he used said affiliation to promote "intelligent design" (aka creationism).

Regardless, Haughton replies that he'll talk to her about it, but that she is technically entitled to use her title in such a manner.

Jones replies, saying he appreciates the reply, and commiserating with how busy they both are, and don't really have time to be dealing with nonscience, even if they feel obligated to do so. He then shares an observation regarding the journal that she is an editor for, is not regarded as a quality peer-reviewed journal (indeed, this is true; ISI's journal citation reports doesn't even list Energy and Environment, which would seem to indicate that it is not looked upon very well by others). He then comments that he's just venting frustration, and agrees that Haughton's reply is correct. Haughton's final reply mentions that SB-C, before her retirement, provided an 'ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness' with regards to Haughton's environmental interests (Haughton is a professor of Human Geography, so environmental concerns are not the only thing he could be primarily studying).

Does this really seem like such an outlandish and unreasonable discussion to you? I don't know what branch of theoretical physics you're in, or at what level, but you've never complained to someone else about how you feel that someone else is unfairly criticizing your research because of personal prejudices? Of course, the part where Jones complained about her use of her affiliation with University of Hull is unlikely to have any equivalents in your field, as I doubt there are professional (or retired) physicists who frequently comment in the sphere of public opinion rather than scientific discussion about how your (personally, your) research is completely backwards and accused you of dishonesty. And use their former affiliation with reputable universities to make their ignorant critique sound more informed.


From the hacked email:

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers

This is doubly untrue. His reason for opposing the journal isn't that they have 'published skeptic papers', as many prominent journals have, in fact (I believe Nature has published a few...), but that the papers they are publishing are not fit to pass peer review, and so the problem is their peer review process. Secondly, he doesn't advocate "destroying" the journal, but rather, as sometimes happens when journals become a venue for advocacy rather than science, that scientists stop recognizing it as a peer-reviewed journal. As a non-peer-reviewed journal, scientists would not cite articles from it or submit their articles to it as part of the scientific literature. Do you submit your articles to, or cite articles from, the International Journal for Creation Research?

Incidentally, the paper which prompted this e-mail, Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years (Soon and Baliunas, 2003), was horribly flawed, and indeed, never should have been published. Shortly after the publication, half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned over the matter. One of those who resigned was the Von Storch mentioned in the email as a possible skeptic. Von Storch had just been promoted to Editor-in-Chief, and attempted to publish an editorial against the paper in question, the publisher, Otto Kinne, decided that the editorial could only be published with the consent of all of the editors of Climate Research (including the one who approved the Soon and Baliunas paper). The editorial would not be published, and Von Storch resigned a few days before his promotion from editor to the newly created position of editor-in-chief was to take effect.

Futhermore, 13 authors of papers cited in the Soon and Baliunas paper wrote a letter in which they criticized the paper on three main grounds: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.

When two other climatologists repeated the study, but without making the mistakes of Soon and Baliunas, they came to... let's just say, a rather different result. In short, peer-review at the journal Climate Research actually had failed badly, and Mann was, in fact, correct to come to the conclusion that he did.



Each "scandalous" email is dissected here:

Summary of notable emails from the CRU hacking scandal : science

And yet you do not deal with the issue of fudging data..... Because we all know that you cannot contextualize fudging data.
 
Last edited:

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,259
Reaction score
28,874
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You are half right.... the trend is positive.

The question is, especially with the release of these documents, is whether the positive trend is real or manufactured.

There is zero evidence of fraud in those emails
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1998 was a local maximum. That hardly means that there is not a positive trend

screenshot20091125at143.png


There was a local maximum in the 60's as well, and one with an obvious source in the 40's. Few real world trends are strictly increasing or decreasing. Global temperatures are no exception, and this does not detract from the fact that the trend is real and positive

There was a maximum in called the Medieval Warm Period.

Since global temps are below that, clearly there's a long term global cooling trend, right?

Fact of the matter is, the current cooling trend, since 1998, is inexplicable using AGW.

Hence AGW is false.

Hence the urgent need of people profitting from AGW to "hide the decline".
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
There is zero evidence of fraud in those emails

I guess that depends on your definition of fraud.

When someone recommends to others that emails be deleted so they cannot be turned in due to FOI requests (laws), that is fraud.

When someone gives explicit advice on avoiding FOI requests, that is fraudulent and illegal:

But university researchers may also find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.’s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law.

<snip>

“Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit,” Jones wrote in a 2007 email. According to Moffatt, the U.K.’s FOI law is supposed to be “identity blind” meaning that requests should be judged on the merits, not who does the requesting.

<snip>

According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt.
In Climate Hack Story, Could Talk of Cover-Up Be as Serious as Crime? : ScienceInsider

"Quite naughty".... Don't you just love the British knack for understatement???


I could go on and on, and on, and on.......
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is zero evidence of fraud in those emails

You mean outside of the urge to "hide the decline" and the instructions to destroy data and files prevent reviewers from checking what's been done, in violation of FOIA regulations?
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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

Since you insist that the world's temperature continues to rise, maybe you should help out some of your fellow climatologists. Poor Dr. Kevin Trenbeth doesn't have your inside knowledge and thinks the global temperature has stagnated. I'm sure you would be glad to send him an email and set him straight.

Just be careful what you put in the email. You never know where it might end up.....

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.

see
[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.ppt
Kevin

The good doctor desperately needs your help in finding the missing warming.
 

Kernel Sanders

Norville Rogers
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There was a maximum in called the Medieval Warm Period.

Since global temps are below that, clearly there's a long term global cooling trend, right?

Fact of the matter is, the current cooling trend, since 1998, is inexplicable using AGW.

Hence AGW is false.

Hence the urgent need of people profitting from AGW to "hide the decline".

IPCC has a page that does a good job of explaining the Medieval Warm Period. The gist is that the warming was only pronounced in Europe, and only really present in the Northern Hemisphere. Globally temperatures varied as they tend to. A relative glut of data from Europe and a relative lack of data originating elsewhere makes the regional fluctuation appear to represent global climate when it does not.

As with the "Little Ice Age", the posited "Medieval Warm Period" appears to have been less distinct, more moderate in amplitude, and somewhat different in timing at the hemispheric scale than is typically inferred for the conventionally-defined European epoch. The Northern Hemisphere mean temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries to be about 0.2°C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but rather below mid-20th century temperatures. The long-term hemispheric trend is best described as a modest and irregular cooling from AD 1000 to around 1850 to 1900, followed by an abrupt 20th century warming. Regional evidence is, however, quite variable. Crowley and Lowery (2000) show that western Greenland exhibited anomalous warmth locally only around AD 1000 (and to a lesser extent, around AD 1400), with quite cold conditions during the latter part of the 11th century, while Scandinavian summer temperatures appeared relatively warm only during the 11th and early 12th centuries. Crowley and Lowery (2000) find no evidence for warmth in the tropics. Regional evidence for medieval warmth elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere is so variable that eastern, yet not western, China appears to have been warm by 20th century standards from the 9th to 13th centuries. The 12th and 14th centuries appear to have been mainly cold in China (Wang et al., 1998a,b; Wang and Gong, 2000). The restricted evidence from the Southern Hemisphere, e.g., the Tasmanian tree-ring temperature reconstruction of Cook et al. (1999), shows no evidence for a distinct Medieval Warm Period.

I guess that depends on your definition of fraud.

When someone recommends to others that emails be deleted so they cannot be turned in due to FOI requests (laws), that is fraud.

When someone gives explicit advice on avoiding FOI requests, that is fraudulent and illegal:


In Climate Hack Story, Could Talk of Cover-Up Be as Serious as Crime? : ScienceInsider

"Quite naughty".... Don't you just love the British knack for understatement???


I could go on and on, and on, and on.......

The researchers clearly have ethics problems. That fact has largely been lost between the apologists who think the scientists are saints and the deniers who think that these researchers' actions indicate anything at all about global warming in general. You asserted that the positive trend shown in the graph I posted may be manufactured. There is no evidence of this in the emails.
 

Frank Talk

Active member
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
301
Reaction score
108
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Top Bottom