Global warming; facts getting in the way of progress.

[Rideron]

The science on global warming is now settled, the facts notwithstanding:

Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Climate Dispute

Scientist's E-Mail Cites 'Trick' to 'Hide the Decline' on Climate Change

DAVID STRINGER
,
AP
posted: 3 HOURS 37 MINUTES AGO
comments: 1323
filed under: Science News, World News


PRINT|E-MAILMORE



Text SizeAAA



LONDON [[Nov. 21) -- Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.
Skip over this content More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.


Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers conspired to manipulate data.
The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.
In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.
Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years [[i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.
One of the colleague referred to by Jones — Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University — did not immediately respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.
The use of the word "trick" by Jones has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change.
"Words fail me," Stephen McIntyre — a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change — wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.
However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward," he said in a statement Saturday.
Jones did not indicate who "Keith" was in his e-mail.
Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails — Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — did not immediately return requests for comment.
The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous."
"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement.
Associated Press Writer Meera Selva in London contributed to this report.

[Diehard]

Well, I'm convinced. Who wants to go to the Hummer dealership with me?

[ccbatson]

The evidence in support of man made global warming skepticism is overwhelming and growing...so, YES, you should be convinced that you have been duped into fearing that life and prosperity via the use of affordable energy is causing harm...the ultimate phony guilt trip.

[Stosh]

The evidence in support of man made global warming skepticism is overwhelming and growing...so, YES, you should be convinced that you have been duped into fearing that life and prosperity via the use of affordable energy is causing harm...the ultimate phony guilt trip.

Tell that to the polar bears.

[ccbatson]

Right...the polar bears whose numbers are exploding/growing rapidly as we speaking...what should I tell them again?

[Stosh]

Right...the polar bears whose numbers are exploding/growing rapidly as we speaking...what should I tell them again?

Prove that statement? Didn't think so.

[ccbatson]

http://newsbusters.org/node/12694

Care for some condiments with your crow and footwear sandwich Stosh....this one even explains how you are ill informed by virtue of the liberal media not covering the facts.

[Stosh]

http://newsbusters.org/node/12694

Care for some condiments with your crow and footwear sandwich Stosh....this one even explains how you are ill informed by virtue of the liberal media not covering the facts.

And I compare that to this article by a legitimate, trusted news service.

http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...55I06C20090619

[ccbatson]

Counter by these dozen or so with actual data.

http://www.sej.org/publications/alas...ngand-going-an

[Alfie1a]

we're doomed

Attachment 4016

[rb336]

the ONLY reasons there are more polar bears now than 40 years ago? hunting, except by a few First Nations groups in Canada and Native Americans in the US was banned in the 60s and tracking methods have improved. DUH

oh, and interestingly enough, Bats article draws from the usual -- op-ed pieces from his long-discredited idol, Jonah Goldberg, Heartland Institute pseudoscience and bloggers. and this is the kind of article he claims come "with actual data."

makes you wonder, as there is zero data involved, except in the aforementioned polar bear scenario

[elganned]

It's interesting that Cc's posted link [[Wait--he posted a link?? What was he thinking?? That's not his style at all...) seems to overwhelmingly indicate that any estimates of the bear population were merely guesses prior to say, 1980. Yet he seems to think this is proof positive that their numbers have grown.

Since we didn't really know how many there were, how can we then conclude that they've increased dramatically?

It is also interesting to note that the article link from newsbuster.org documents an apparent population increase in eastern Canada, while the reuters.com link from Stosh details estimates extrapolated from declines in western Alaska. And that the Cc's aforementioned link to sej.org provides an answer to the increase in eastern Canada: "And a curtailment of some commercial seal hunting has sparked a seal population explosion – angering fishermen, but providing populations in eastern Canada and Greenland with plenty of polar bear chow, leading in turn to localized polar bear population growth in spite of the ice decline."

So it seems that Cc is, once again, hoist on his own petard. In light of that, it is no wonder that he doesn't post links; when actually explored, they never seem to say what he thinks they say.

[rb336]

So it seems that Cc is, once again, hoist on his own petard. In light of that, it is no wonder that he doesn't post links; when actually explored, they never seem to say what he thinks they say.

for someone who once bragged about his speed-reading prowess, that is a regular occurence even when he simply reponds to even short posts

[Diehard]

I have a question nobody ever seems to address in these global warming threads.
Obviously there's a dispute over whether global warming is really happening, and if it is, whether it's caused by human activity or is a natural occurrence.
Is there any dispute, however, over any of the following:
1. Global warming, if it is happening, is a bad thing and we should do what we can to stop it.
2. Climate science is complex and the data is compiled and studied over many years, so any flippant comment like "global warming is a hoax because it snowed today" should be dismissed.
3. Burning fossil fuels causes pollution.
4. The US buys much of its fossil fuels from countries where a lot of people want to do us harm.
5. The US borrows money from China to buy fossil fuels, adding to the national deficit.
Does anyone dispute any of this?
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the agenda of the global warming deniers. Are they defending the status quo, and claiming that the "progress" referred to in the title of this thread is to keep doing what we've been doing for 100 years?

[rb336]

diehard, they have. unfortunately, they get overwhelmed by mindless, factless two-line posts from various looney right ideologues who never let a fact or rational argument get in the way of their unwavering allegiance to discredited ideas.

the argument goes

Q: IF anthropomorphic global warming isn't real, but we act as if it is, what is the end result?
A: Cleaner air, greater efficiency, greater self-sufficiency

or

Q: IF AGW is real, and we act as if it is not, what is the end result?
A: Catastrophe of unprecedented dimension

what is the rational thing to do?

[Pam]

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the agenda of the global warming deniers.

Greed and selfishness. They think environmentalists want to raise taxes and take away their toys.

[ccbatson]

Look at Rb go! THe alarmist allegation is proven wrong...so...think up a reason why it might be wrong and behave as if it isn't...THE LIBERAL MIND AT "WORK" and on display.

[3WC]

Let's talk about polar bears. Does anyone know what they are, really? As a so-called "species," they've been around for a little over 200,000 years. They are descendants of grizzly bears who overpopulated the inland areas of AK and many griz's moved north to the sea in search of food. They simply evolved. If they become extinct because of so-called global warming or any other cause , they will re-evolve in the future when inland conditions cause grizs to migrate north again in search of food.

Weather in AK is much more cyclical than the lower 48. [[We've been through this many times before on this forum.) Curently, northern AK seem to becoming warmer, probably more as a result of ocean currents than anything else. While ice is melting in the polar regions apparently more quickly than in other areas, ice , and glaciers are building in south AK in several areas.

Glacier melting has been on and off for centuries. The Mendenhall Glacier, AK's most famous glacier located near Juneau [[and a very big tourist attraction), was formed about 3500 years ago and has been melting -- receeding -- since 1750. Same with the Exit Glacier near Seward [[90 miles from ANC) which has been receeding since the 1890's, long before any man-made effect could have caused it.

AK 2,000,000 years ago was entirely covered by ice and has had at least 11 ice ages [[periods of extreme cold between periods of much warmer climate conditions) since then. Go to AK as many times as I have been there, talk to the people who really study this stuff, and you'll understand that although certain areas of AK are warming, many other areas are cooling, and virtually no knowledgable person claims that the warming conditions are man-made.

Few true earth scientists believe that global warming, if in fact there is such a thing [[other than local warming trends), think it's man-caused. Most people who have very strong fight-to-the-death opinions one way or the other have no idea what they are talking about.

[ccbatson]

3WC...PLEASE participate more frequently, your insight is most welcome and needed.

[Diehard]

THe alarmist allegation is proven wrong...so...think up a reason why it might be wrong and behave as if it isn't...THE LIBERAL MIND AT "WORK" and on display.

Isn't Bats adorable? He thinks that since he posted a link [[which may be a sign of hell freezing over, come to think of it) and insulted all those darn libs, the whole matter must be settled.
I'll alert the scientific community. Why bother with all that research when they could just ask Bats what he thinks?

[Diehard]

By the way, Bats, did you take a moment to read any of my post #14? If you did [[and of course you didn't) do you take issue with any of those points? They're all just more liberal propaganda and lies, right?

[3WC]

Would someone please explain how long term climate changes merit being categorized as politically "liberal" or "conservative?"

It's true that politicians frequently try to massage and capitalize on scientific debates [[a la Al Gore) to promote their own commercial and political agendas [[use of so-called alternative sources of energy), but all that does is further obfuscate the issues.

Anyone interested in the topic should familiarize themselves with the basics of some of the earth sciences, the concept of geologic time, and the geologic history of the earth, which is inextricably intertwined with radical climate changes during earth's history, 1000s of them.

12,000 years ago MI was covered by up to a mile of ice, glaciation which scoured the earth, created the Great Lakes [[except for Superior), and altered the surface of the area. Global warming? Sure, for the past 12,000 years.

[Diehard]

Would someone please explain how long term climate changes merit being categorized as politically "liberal" or "conservative?"

It's true that politicians frequently try to massage and capitalize on scientific debates [[a la Al Gore) to promote their own commercial and political agendas [[use of so-called alternative sources of energy), but all that does is further obfuscate the issues.

Anyone interested in the topic should familiarize themselves with the basics of some of the earth sciences, the concept of geologic time, and the geologic history of the earth, which is inextricably intertwined with radical climate changes during earth's history, 1000s of them.

THIS.
Thank you. This is why we should listen to the actual scientists studying this, and not the blowhards on either side trying to further their political agenda.

[elganned]

I just have to ask, 3WC: Are you extrapolating the global situation based only on AK [[which is what seems to have happened with the polar bear thing), or are you citing data from sources which could confidently be applied globally? I mean, I could extrapolate from Michigan data and be correct for Michigan but incorrect for anywhere else in the world.

Not looking to start a fight, just asking.

[Rideron]

As the old saying goes, "Garbage in-Garbage out"

"Global warming' is built on phony presumptions that are themselves based on the active supression of evidence that runs counter to a pre-ordained conclusion.

But this kinda thing has happened before, with scientists like Galileo, Johannes Kepler, etc. etc.