emails and global warming

[szh]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear....html

awesome. Way to live your cause.

Thanks for that link.

Totally amazing "do what I say, not what I do" attitude!

Z

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Are you guys done jerking each other off? What are the chances of this leak being real and why so quick to rally behind it?

[audtatious]

Maybe you should do a bit of research before assuming anything that is against your belief in MMGW is automatically wrong, fake or a farce? Then again, maybe the "scientists" lied when they said the emails that have been released are not fakes?

I'd be all for making changes if MMGW were true. Let's look at the general numbers. 95% of global warming gasses is water vapor. 3.6% consists of CO2. That 3.6% is a mixture of man made and natural where only a small portion of THAT percentage is man made. Of the 380ppm CO2, man contributes less than 12ppm. You think lowing that to 8ppm will make any real change to the earths climate?

[AZhitman]

Are you guys done jerking each other off? What are the chances of this leak being real and why so quick to rally behind it?

What are the chances that it's NOT (given that NO ONE in the libby media has presented evidence to the contrary).

Why so quick to defend it?

Do some reading, brother. Inform yourself. Then you can come play in the big kids' sandbox.

[szh]

What are the chances of this leak being real

Did you do your research at all? They are 100% real - the scientists in question admitted that these were their e-mails.

Wwhy so quick to rally behind it?

I am a scientist and an engineer. To me, falsifying evidence (and thus influencing the outcome) in scientific tests due to personal biases is anathema.

What these guys did was cause for invalidation of their theories, and they should lose their jobs, etc. Under normal circumstances, scientists who lied as badly as this would be fired and castigated in the community - but given the current political climate (pun intended), I doubt they will receive anything more than a slap on the wrist.

Sad.

Z

[AZhitman]

^ EXACTLY.

I have a better name for it: E-terrorism.

Think about it: SO much is riding on this. We HAVE to trust someone. Yet the so-called "experts", the ones we're supposed to trust to educate us on these topics, are making stuff up?

They SHOULD be held to a higher standard. This should mean expulsion from the scientific community and a permanent blackball from any further work on subjects that impact public policy.

[RobPaulson]

i have seen in multiple videos of interviews/debates with MMGW advocates stating that they accept the idea that the data that the theory was based off of was altered. but its ok. they accept that. and still take it as scientific fact.

what is wrong with these people?

I am a scientist and an engineer. To me, falsifying evidence (and thus influencing the outcome) in scientific tests due to personal biases is anathema.

Same. All of their credibility should be completely shot forever. ALL of their 'theories' and conclusions need to be investigated again in a transparent, international medium for all to scrutinize. Those of us educated enough to understand the scientific method and its core ideas are outraged by this entire situation.

Falsifying data is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. And then imposing tax and government regulation directly based on this falsified data is just the salt and sandpaper on the wound.

@ Scorched, seriously, do some research next time before you make a retarded blanket statement insulting the people in the thread who actually have degrees in the sciences and have done the research necessary to understand the magnitude of this scandal. How can you continue to blindly support the people who lie to your face and impose unnecessary government regulations based on those lies? The deliberate alteration of data to make it fit their hypothesis was admitted. By all of them. But no one seems to care ...

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

I was just being hypothetical with the idea of the E-Mails being falsified...

So a handful of people represent the entire science of climatology?Way to "blanket statement".Be mad at the people who transgressed...not the movement. They may represent the community but they are just a part of it.

And this sort of thing isn't new...since the beginning of scientific research people have been making stuff up. That's what makes science as much of a Faith as any religion. To allow this incident to muddy the water and call into question the work of thousands of good/honest researchers and doctors is kind of silly.

[audtatious]

The movement is based on falsehoods. Thus, it's quite easy to dismiss the movement. I still remember the hysteria of the 70's concerning some of these same scientists claiming the next ice age was upon us. Now they are claiming we are going to melt and drown.....while temps have remained constant over the last decade and is actually dropping....for up to 2-3 more decades.....THEN we will burn in hell.

False data, constant misdirection, predictions going the opposite direction. Why should we believe them and screw up the worlds economy? There is a reason why having a drought is proof of MMGW as is rain proof of MMGW while lots of storms is proof of MMGW as is lack of storms, etc. etc. Gotta cover all the bases to have their Ah-HA moments to point to.

[szh]

I was just being hypothetical with the idea of the E-Mails being falsified...

Don't question facts. That is a time waster.

So a handful of people represent the entire science of climatology?Way to "blanket statement".Be mad at the people who transgressed...not the movement. They may represent the community but they are just a part of it.

What you don't seem to get (along with all the politician idiots) is that this is a scientific process - the measurements of some researchers (with the money or backing) are used by many, many others in working on their theories. This is common practice in the scientific community as a whole - theoretical researchers rely on the data gathered by the experimental researchers (often post-doc students, by the way).

(For example, think of this question: Does every theoretical physicist in the world work at CERN directly and conduct their experiements? No, they rely on the people there to do the measurements and publish the data for the rest of the community to use.)

So, if the underlying data of a theory is faked or incorrect, it throws the entire set of follow-on theories and work of other people into question.

In this particular case, the problem is that these e-mails are from the people who gather the temperature and data that other scientists use to fit into their models, since not everyone can afford to be out there putting their own temperature measurement sensors in the field, etc.

So, if the measured data gathered by these "handful of people" is faked - as they themselves have now admitted, it crucially affects all the other scientists theories too - the many who rely on that data. Throws the whole set of work open to doubt.

And this is what the politicians - with their lack of understanding of the scientific process - fail to get. They are using the same, silly arguments you mention, to simply discard the data of these "handful of people" and go on. Whereas, the true scientists who relied on the accuracy of the data are horrified - notice how silent they have been till they figure out the impact of the fakery on their work.

And this sort of thing isn't new...since the beginning of scientific research people have been making stuff up. That's what makes science as much of a Faith as any religion. To allow this incident to muddy the water and call into question the work of thousands of good/honest researchers and doctors is kind of silly.

Absolutely incorrect. That is not the scientific method that is taught and practiced and believed in by reputable scientists - they would be horrified at your grossly simplistic assertion of deliberate falsehood here.

Hypothesis and theories are made, and experiments are conducted to validate or invalidate the theories - sometimes the other way around too. Data leads to theories that lead to more data gathering.

Regardless of which, if the experimental data does not fit the theory, the theory is tossed out (not the data!) and work starts anew.

However, if the experimental data is faked or deliberately altered or certain measurements left out - just to fit a pet theory, and the data is later proven false, it discredits the theory and all follow-on work. This has been the way the scientists operate ... for a long, long time now.

Bottom line: don't confuse "creating a new, unproven hypothesis or theory" (which could indeed get changed later!) with "experimentation and data gathering" (which is used to validate the hypothesis and theories), ideally leading to axioms ultimately.

Z

Some good reading for you:

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/...shtmlh ... .c...6.htm

[audtatious]

Let's look at how the IPCC report came to be. The IPCC pulled in appx 900 or so scientists in multiple fields and gave them a task to research. Each of them gave a report on their narrow scope to the IPCC. A handful of scientists and UN politicians then gathered and either used or dismissed the output from those 900 scientists to develop their MMGW policy. They then wrapped a big bow on it and stated that "all scientists agreed" and that there was nothing to discuss.

When some scientists who were involved started objecting to the report they were quickly silenced and lost a majority of their research funding, this is a well publicized fact. Others were intentionally associated with horrible "big oil" as a means to get the public to not listen to them. Some were threatened to keep quiet. Again, all well publicized. Others who were not involved in the initial report were not allowed to view the data (and a majority of the data still has not been released AFAIK) and when they had their own research and opinion they were attacked, threatened, lost their funding, dismissed as not being a "client scientist", etc. Again, publicized. Eventually, data was shown to be incorrect and intentionally picked in numerous cases which would throw out a lot of the work of the IPCC researchers as they based some of their research on that data. Regardless, the IPCC and other pro-MMGW still stick by the report while some have recently come out and reported that not only will the seas rise by the amount the IPCC stated but it would do it 2-3x as much. They also keep pressing that time is running out for us to solve the issue based upon the erroneous reports.

Any of that sound suspicious? Does to me.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

[QUOTE=szhosain]This whole thread is a time waster, thanks.

Absolutely incorrect.

Are you saying that every, single, little, scientific pursuit before now has been utterly factual and un-biased? That seems a bit naive. For every person who is outed as a fraud there are even more that haven't been discovered.

I did not say that's how scientific reasoning works, did I? How am I asserting a falsehood? I'm just asking questions here.And all I'm saying is it's happened and will continue to happen. It happens in areas outside of climatology.No one likes to think of science like that....and that's why it is as much a Faith as Christianity. Are you doing each and every experiment by hand? No, you have to listen to reports of other people's data and experiments. And you hope it's all true.

Just stirring the pot...seems like a bunch of dudes patting each other on the back and whipping them with towels in here...

[szh]

This whole thread is a time waster, thanks.

To you maybe. But not to scientists and people who believe in the truth.

Are you saying that every, single, little, scientific pursuit before now has been utterly factual and un-biased?

Obviously, I am not saying that. You are being deliberately argumentative with an extreme comment designed to deflect the point.

Good scientists do the best they can without allowing deliberate fakery to affect the outcome. Good scientists take the best measurements they can and do NOT falsify data or leave out critical data that may change the outcome.

Bad scientist falsify data. To fit poor theories perhaps. When deliberate and when caught, their work is discredited and all the work that depends on that data is considered incorrect.

This happens with regularity in the scientific community at large.

And, this is the most important point, this discrediting needs to be done to the measurements that these climate temperature measurement fakers.

Unfortunately, in this current "greenie" political world, it will not happen.

And all I'm saying is it's happened and will continue to happen. It happens in areas outside of climatology.

Sure. And all that work is discredited - like it should be. Just as the fake data in this situation should be!

No one likes to think of science like that....and that's why it is as much a Faith as Christianity.

NOT correct. Faith does not allow for experiments to discredit the belief. Quite a different thing ... just the definition of the word ought to explain that!

Are you doing each and every experiment by hand? No, you have to listen to reports of other people's data and experiments. And you hope it's all true.

Exactly!!! And when the data or experiements is proven not true or faked, all theories that depend on that data are also not true. That is exactly the point!

You DO get the point.

Just stirring the pot

The word "troll" would apply then, I guess.

Z

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Putting words in my mouth...but OK.And do people really need to quote every line to get a point across?

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Also...I'm honestly curious about who gains what from these falsified reports. I can see "big oil" having a hand in this sort of thing...but who else would benefit? I mean...there's a reason for this all...and it's not just to make us all look like idiots.

[audtatious]

Also...I'm honestly curious about who gains what from these falsified reports. I can see "big oil" having a hand in this sort of thing...but who else would benefit? I mean...there's a reason for this all...and it's not just to make us all look like idiots.

Al Gore has gone from being worth 1 million to over 100 million since leaving office simply based upon MMGW. The Cap & Trade initiative in EU and other countries have made numerous people and companies rich while also doing nothing to lower CO2 output. It also gives the Gov more authority over individuals lives, something Pelosi and gang are always striving for.

[C-Kwik]

I apologize if my involvement in this thread comes late. Its been a rough semester and I purposely avoided it (it too a lot of my will to do so ) so I can make sure I stay focused on my studies. And I'm sure you've all been waiting for a good "lefty" opinion on this.

So, hackers have taken 160MB of email data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. They have also distributed the contents of said emails...

Snippets:

I'm not so sure said emails are the smoking gun you think they are. They are just "snippets" as you state and what I've read of the full email for each of the snippets you provided, either provide context that at most makes me want to see more of what was written. But the problem is I can't find a source that contains every email that was stolen. I can probably take snippets of all kinds of email or forum posts and make them say anything I want. For a group of people who demand for transparency and honesty, where is the same criticism when it comes to these emails? Perhaps its easy to accept what you want to hear...despite the fact that it comes through the hands of people who would use an illegal method of obtaining such info.

Nevertheless, consider that even if this source of temp data was proven false, how does it prove the rest of the independent data that concurred with it is false?

Frankly, if the science was bad, it would be easy to prove with proper science. As far as I can tell, that has not been accomplished in any way shape or form.

Al Gore has gone from being worth 1 million to over 100 million since leaving office simply based upon MMGW. The Cap & Trade initiative in EU and other countries have made numerous people and companies rich while also doing nothing to lower CO2 output. It also gives the Gov more authority over individuals lives, something Pelosi and gang are always striving for.

Baby steps. Its hard to get a nation, let alone a world, to come together on a common goal. Especially since not everyone is on board with achieving this goal. While MMGW, Cap and Trade have likely made some people rich, that's really not the point. This is a red herring unless you can prove or at least pose a plausible argument that he and others who profited from the MMGW movement actually had the intent of getting rich based on a lie. He capitalized on an existing movement. And a lot of other smart people are doing the same. Don't tell me the right is going to start frowning on that now...

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Nevertheless, consider that even if this source of temp data was proven false, how does it prove the rest of the independent data that concurred with it is false?

Frankly, if the science was bad, it would be easy to prove with proper science. As far as I can tell, that has not been accomplished in any way shape or form.

That's more or less one of my points...just because some people were outed as frauds does not mean the rest of them are. Sure it makes the data SUSPECT, as all scientific data is, but that doesn't mean you can outright discredit it.

[AZhitman]

The point is, these were the self-proclaimed "experts" that are guiding pulic policy.

I can certainly appreciate scorchy's questioning, especially asking "who benefits?", but the point is, there's an awful lot of defense garnered for these people who admittedly bastardized their field of study.

Why?

What do we as citezens gain by defending their actions? What's the harm? Is the sky going to fall if these "scientists" are exposed as frauds?

Hippocratic Oath says "Do No Harm". So, for a doctor, this would be a career-ender. Yet a scientist can get caught manipulating VERY important data and nothing happens?

How about your IRS guy? If you found the IRS auditor was clobbernig you for an extra 30% every year, you'd be out for blood.

Professional standards must be adhered to in every area of expertise.

[AZhitman]

On a side note, this guy makes a great point:

I am a Liberal and a Democrat, and I want an investigation into Climategate.

Does someone out there think that the only people who are allowed to expect openness and integrity in the world of science are raving right-wingers? Can't Liberals expect integrity and full disclosure in science too?

The word "Liberal" used to be connected with people who wanted to get at the truth of things. Is that an idea that is no longer accurate? I don't like the smell of what I read in the emails. I downloaded the emails and read them for myself, and if someone thinks they are just "poorly worded" or "out of context, then you haven't read them.

Since when did my being a Democrat mean that I can't want to find out the truth about AGW?

Why am I supposed to follow some party line to prove I'm a good Democrat?

Since when did being a Democrat mean I have to check my intelligence at the door and believe what I'm told to believe. I resent being told I have to sign on to AGW no matter WHAT.

Look, if there is nothing to hide, and if AGW is accurate, then why is everyone so terrified of an investigation?

[C-Kwik]

On a side note, this guy makes a great point:

I am a Liberal and a Democrat, and I want an investigation into Climategate.

Does someone out there think that the only people who are allowed to expect openness and integrity in the world of science are raving right-wingers? Can't Liberals expect integrity and full disclosure in science too?

The word "Liberal" used to be connected with people who wanted to get at the truth of things. Is that an idea that is no longer accurate? I don't like the smell of what I read in the emails. I downloaded the emails and read them for myself, and if someone thinks they are just "poorly worded" or "out of context, then you haven't read them.

You have every right to investigate the issue for yourself. There's no question about that. There is a big difference between seeking the answers in science and politics. The former works. The latter does not.

Since when did my being a Democrat mean that I can't want to find out the truth about AGW?

Why am I supposed to follow some party line to prove I'm a good Democrat?

Since when did being a Democrat mean I have to check my intelligence at the door and believe what I'm told to believe. I resent being told I have to sign on to AGW no matter WHAT.

Look, if there is nothing to hide, and if AGW is accurate, then why is everyone so terrified of an investigation?

You can pretty much plug Republican or any other party name in place of Democrat in each of those statements, flip the context of the statements to be anti-MMGW and you get the same crap. This has nothing to do with the science. As I've said countless times before, lets discuss the science. While we, on this forum, certainly aren't qualified, the discussion and sharing of knowledge can go a long way in helping everyone in here come out with a much better understanding of the issue.

As for hiding anything, I haven't seen any opposition to investigation into the nature of the emails from the science community. In fact, every article I've read so far that asks someone in the scientific community (specifically in a climate specialty) feels this is a very small issue in the big picture because there is so much evidence that supports MMGW, even if you ignore data from the CRU completely. However, this has nothing to do with the science itself so this is just as irrelevant as the "claimategate scandal" itself.

[AZhitman]

Interesting.

Here's a correlation for you:

When the "experts" reported they had good, solid intelligence on WMD's in Iraq, the entire Cabinet was effectively "fooled". Much gnashing of teeth followed, yet the ship had sailed.

Here, we have a similar situation. Why shouldn't we hold the scientific community to a higher standard? Why can't we be wary of being burned? Why can't we crucify those who provide questionable information (like we've done now, in hindsight on Iraq)?

Anything less would be utter hypocrisy.

I'm just keeping the status quo - The MMGW tribe should endure the same scrutiny and lambasting that was heaped upon the GWB administration.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

I have nothing against that at all. In fact... whenever you figure this all out...gimme a call.

[audtatious]

I'm not so sure said emails are the smoking gun you think they are. They are just "snippets" as you state and what I've read of the full email for each of the snippets you provided, either provide context that at most makes me want to see more of what was written. But the problem is I can't find a source that contains every email that was stolen. I can probably take snippets of all kinds of email or forum posts and make them say anything I want. For a group of people who demand for transparency and honesty, where is the same criticism when it comes to these emails? Perhaps its easy to accept what you want to hear...despite the fact that it comes through the hands of people who would use an illegal method of obtaining such info.

I never said they were a smoking gun, just more fuel on the fire. The person who stole or leaked them should go to jail for breaking the law. They are out now and what's done is done.

Nevertheless, consider that even if this source of temp data was proven false, how does it prove the rest of the independent data that concurred with it is false?

What about the independent data that has proven the original data wrong? What about the data that decisions are based on not being released for evaluation? What about the temp over the last 10 years not following the expected output based upon the data they won't release? What about the data that has been released being proven as selected? What about other scientists who have different opinions than the IPCC? What about Hanen himself who has stated that CO2 is not a main contributor today to temperature?

We can go on with this for days. I bring someone up and you find a reason to dismiss him/them. I bring others up and you dismiss it as well. You feel the data evaluated by the IPCC is 100% correct or close enough for you to want any legislation to fix MMGW. I feel it's all a bunch of crap and simply another way for the leaders of the UN to line their pockets, penalize the west and garner more power.

Frankly, if the science was bad, it would be easy to prove with proper science. As far as I can tell, that has not been accomplished in any way shape or form.

People (yes, real scientists) are calling it bad science and are proving it by showing alternate means debunking the data. It's not being reported via the news or these people are simply being dismissed. Hell, the fact that a number of the big-wigs with IPCC and such are now claiming we are going into a cold spell instead of the warming trend they predicted shows they have no real clue WTF they are talking about.

Baby steps. Its hard to get a nation, let alone a world, to come together on a common goal. Especially since not everyone is on board with achieving this goal. While MMGW, Cap and Trade have likely made some people rich, that's really not the point. This is a red herring unless you can prove or at least pose a plausible argument that he and others who profited from the MMGW movement actually had the intent of getting rich based on a lie. He capitalized on an existing movement. And a lot of other smart people are doing the same. Don't tell me the right is going to start frowning on that now...

Cap and Trade in the EU has done nothing to stem CO2 and is full of corruption. I'm not going to waste my time showing intent for anything, as time progresses things become clear to some and stay the same to others. Maybe I simply don't trust people like you do when the worlds economy is on their shoulder.

Interesting article....of course, worldnetdaily so it's worthlesshttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?f...18659

[C-Kwik]

Interesting.

Here's a correlation for you:

When the "experts" reported they had good, solid intelligence on WMD's in Iraq, the entire Cabinet was effectively "fooled". Much gnashing of teeth followed, yet the ship had sailed.

Here, we have a similar situation. Why shouldn't we hold the scientific community to a higher standard? Why can't we be wary of being burned? Why can't we crucify those who provide questionable information (like we've done now, in hindsight on Iraq)?

Anything less would be utter hypocrisy.

I'm just keeping the status quo - The MMGW tribe should endure the same scrutiny and lambasting that was heaped upon the GWB administration.

There is nothing wrong with what you've said in this statement. The key though is that there is no proof that we've been fooled (it was clear that Iraq had no WMD's some time after we went in). My opinion is that based on the entire text of emails I've seen (as opposed to snippets), we need to see all of it in context to determine if there was actually any real attempts to deceive. That said, even if it were true that this group deceived, it does not prove the rest of the science wrong. Especially since their data concurs with independent data quite well. I'm not saying its wrong to question it or be able to question it. What my criticisms are aimed at are a lack of impartiality when forming an opinion. I'd expect any person who conducts investigations to be able to do that. [/QUOTE]

I never said they were a smoking gun, just more fuel on the fire. The person who stole or leaked them should go to jail for breaking the law. They are out now and what's done is done.

The intent of that statement was to show the contradiction that one would arbitrarily believe a body of people who would go through illegal means to try and "prove" something wrong. It would be one thing if an insider leaked the info to expose a fraud or even if such info was stumbled upon. This was not the case. What appears to have happened here was a group of people who are trying to prove MMGW wrong were deliberately trying to undermine credibility. At the very least, anyone looking at this issue should take a step back and determine if the party who released the snippets of email are putting them out of context or not. And there are several that have (you can find some pretty detailed explanations of what the intents of the statements made in many of the emails were). Some have no explanations that I can find, but the presence of some that show that context was removed should at the very least bring people intent on seeking truth to look into it deeper.

What about the independent data that has proven the original data wrong? What about the data that decisions are based on not being released for evaluation? What about the temp over the last 10 years not following the expected output based upon the data they won't release? What about the data that has been released being proven as selected? What about other scientists who have different opinions than the IPCC? What about Hanen himself who has stated that CO2 is not a main contributor today to temperature?

What data that proves it wrong? Nothing has been presented that has been able to stand against our scientific knowledge. From what I can tell, the most popular dissenting arguments appear to be coming from the corner of McIntyre and McKittrick. And they have been proven wrong and that they ignored key data points.

As for data not being released, there are legal issues in getting data that is not their own released. These aren't simple quotes you can use from a book that you can just cite as a source to fill the pages of a research paper.

10 year data is not exactly telling. Especially since the very nature of climate is that we can predict in the long term much more accurately than in short terms. Even then, IIRC, you were pretty quick to dismiss an explanation of it when released without much investigation of it.

Scientists who disagree need to submit valid proof.

Who is Hanen? Or were you referring to James Hansen? If so, please provide a link to what he stated.

We can go on with this for days. I bring someone up and you find a reason to dismiss him/them. I bring others up and you dismiss it as well. You feel the data evaluated by the IPCC is 100% correct or close enough for you to want any legislation to fix MMGW. I feel it's all a bunch of crap and simply another way for the leaders of the UN to line their pockets, penalize the west and garner more power.

I dismiss them with reasoning. Solid reasoning. Ultimately, I am trying to lead each of these MMGW topics into the realm of science. For whatever reason, many of you don't bother following...

I never said the IPCC data was correct. If you've been paying attention (throughout all the MMGW threads), I've repeatedly stated that I lack the knowledge to make that kind of an opinion. Frankly, we all do. Which is precisely why this should be a discussion and not a conclusion. I sound like a MMGW proponent because in here, most of you argue against MMGW. I make points to counter poor reasoning and thereby get labelled a proponent. That said, on an ongoing basis, I do side with the majority opinion of scientists who specialize in this. For all I know, they could be wrong. But until valid scientific reasoning is revealed that reasonably refutes MMGW, I'm gonna take the advice of those who are most knowledgable.

People (yes, real scientists) are calling it bad science and are proving it by showing alternate means debunking the data. It's not being reported via the news or these people are simply being dismissed. Hell, the fact that a number of the big-wigs with IPCC and such are now claiming we are going into a cold spell instead of the warming trend they predicted shows they have no real clue WTF they are talking about.

Again, long term climate is easier to predict as it is less dependent on variables that affect short term climate variations. As I've said before in regards to many theories, a deeper, better understanding oc science typically does not undermine the big picture science. Or should we start discussing gravity again.

Cap and Trade in the EU has done nothing to stem CO2 and is full of corruption. I'm not going to waste my time showing intent for anything, as time progresses things become clear to some and stay the same to others. Maybe I simply don't trust people like you do when the worlds economy is on their shoulder.

A lack of trust is fine. But then the question becomes, why trust one group over the other? My opinions boil down to the science. If further developments occur, then I will evaluate as we go along. So whats your basis then? Faith? *Yeah, I know...low blow...I couldnt resist.

[audtatious]

The intent of that statement was to show.....

They are not sure if it was an insider or not. Regardless, it was wrong. I simply don't buy the lame excuses for the couple that have prompted some form of reply. I'm also not basing any major percentage of my standpoint on those emails.

What data that proves it wrong? Nothing has been presented that has been able to stand against our scientific knowledge. From what I can tell, the most popular dissenting arguments appear to be coming from the corner of McIntyre and McKittrick. And they have been proven wrong and that they ignored key data points.

Go look at the first global warming thread in this forum because I don't feel like dredging up all the links. McIntyre and McKittrick are not the only ones picking apart the data either, they are just the ones who are pointed at and ignored regardless of whether they have a valid standpoint or not. There are constantly reports via EU newspapers and others that detail research that does not match the exceptional work done by the IPCC, they are simply not reported here in the US.

As for data not being released, there are legal issues in getting data that is not their own released. These aren't simple quotes you can use from a book that you can just cite as a source to fill the pages of a research paper.

Thus the data is peer reviewed by select people and not the scientific community as a whole. In the US there are also legal requirements to release data which has been ignored by the likes of NASA. Not much can be done to require information obtained in other countries to be available.

10 year data is not exactly telling. Especially since the very nature of climate is that we can predict in the long term much more accurately than in short terms. Even then, IIRC, you were pretty quick to dismiss an explanation of it when released without much investigation of it.

I agree, 10 years is not exactly telling and not proof. That is opposite of what the IPCC has stated when they released their hockey stick saying the science is done and conclusive. In that case the temps of the last 10 years shows their assertions are wrong. Can you tell me what they have yet to be right about?

Scientists who disagree need to submit valid proof.

Maybe they have and the pro-mmgw community is ignoring it? Lots of scientists and professors have come out against the claims based on their own research.

Who is Hanen? Or were you referring to James Hansen? If so, please provide a link to what he stated.

Yeah, it was Hansen. I don't have the link anymore and there is too much BS coming up on google for me to find it easily. Per memory he stated that CO2 was not an issue today but may be in the future and that methane and other pollutants were worse in the near term. Then again, he has been for stopping all coal plants and wants to lower the number of people on earth so it kinda depends on who he is talking to and when.

I will state again, I'm all for improving things as we can. I am NOT for trashing the economy for what may be a fallacy. You don't know, I don't know. I'm simply against taking measures to fix something today that has not been proven to be an issue and I do not believe the IPCC and others have proven anything.

Again, we are right back to the last thread where it's pointless to continue as I'm not changing my mind and you are not changing yours either. Call me stupid or a hater of Mother Earth, I don't care. I'm not going to spend hours upon hours responding to circle jerks and I simply need to stop posting threads to keep things going in the politics forum.

[AZhitman]

Spinning it back to science is all well and good...

However...

If you knew the science that well, someone would be paying you to research climate change. They're not.

I'm no scientist, so I'm going to be ineffective there as well (WAY more so than you, Chano, as you're pretty knowledgeable).

What I *DO* know pretty well is public policy, and I've got a pretty good grasp of the impact the press and politicians have on popular culture.

Right now it's the "hip" thing, and they've DEMONIZED anyone who's not "green"...

...to the point that I'm about to start burning a stack of tires in my front yard just to protest it.

All I'm saying is, leave me the hell alone until you have some proof. Until then, I will be as green as I CHOOSE to be, but for economic reasons, not environmental ones.

QUIT FORCING ME. I AM A FREE AMERICAN.

[srellim234]

AZ- I agree with you on that one. The green measures we use here around the house are by our economic choice. Recycling bottles and cans returns a little money to our food budget AND it makes sense environmentally. We replaced our light bulbs over a period of years to CFLs as the incandescents burned out because it made sense economically, not because it was "green". We gradually changed the thermostat to 65 and are comfortable with it there all winter, opting to wear long sleeves in the house instead of turning on the heater. We put a big wall unit a/c that we only turn on a couple of times a year when the house heats up beyond 84* and there's no breeze for opening windows. As a result our electric bill has never gone above $75.

Because it makes sense for us financially.

[bigbadberry3]

It appears that the AP and some independent scientists have reviewed all the emails and found that the data was not faked.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34...43001

Discuss.

When I was reading AZhitman's last post and reading how non-green people are demonized for their actions, I thought about an interesting blog that commented on a study where people who considered themselves green and the relationship to how they acted. The study actually found people who believed they acted green are more susceptible to "selfish or questionable behavior." The study is going to be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science. I just thought it was an ironic tangent to this discussion.

Blog link, not the study link

http://blog.taragana.com/e/200...40349/

[RobPaulson]

Developing countries are pulling out ( )