Break-in targets climate scientist

[CHIMO]

Source: The Observer

Attempts have been made to break into the offices of one of Canada's leading climate scientists, it was revealed yesterday. The victim was Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and a key contributor to the work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In one incident, an old computer was stolen and papers were disturbed.

In addition, individuals have attempted to impersonate technicians in a bid to access data from his office, said Weaver. The attempted breaches, on top of the hacking of files from British climate researcher Phil Jones, have heightened fears that climate-change deniers are mounting a campaign to discredit the work of leading meteorologists before the start of the Copenhagen climate summit tomorrow.

"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can … take out of context," said Weaver. The prospect of more break-ins and hacking has forced researchers to step up computer security.

Fears of further attacks by climate-change deniers have also put Copenhagen delegates under increased pressure to reach a comprehensive deal to limit carbon emissions, with Britain's chief negotiator, energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband, warning last week that there was no certainty that a deal would be reached. "We need to have our foot on the gas all the time," he said on Thursday. "We should not be complacent about getting a deal." It was crucial that Britain, and Europe, showed ambition in setting an agenda for a tough, binding agreement and not let the efforts of climate sceptics derail negotiations, he added. "Our children will hold us in contempt if we fail now."


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/dec/06/break-in-targets-climate-scientist

---

If anyone thought that the deniers were independent thinkers without nefarious backers. Then they need not entertain those type of thoughts anymore.

[caraher]

1. I wonder how much more of this is happening than we know about

and are the perpetrators going to cross the line from attempts to discredit to outright intimidation?

[kestrel91316]

2. I expect assassinations next. Seriously.

[glinda]

4. I think they are assessing this all wrong as to motive. I think it "end of days" nuts.

[Blue_Tires]

22. +1

probably more overt, active methods of sabotage first, then the mail bombs

[superconnected]

130. This is really big business - assination isn't off the table.

[JonQ]

3. A group of scientists get caught redhanded

doing something they shouldn't and the chorus is: that doesn't indict all the other scientists!

One guy breaks in to one office and the response: that shows us everything we need to know about every person who questions the official story.

Here's a thought, if you don't want people breaking in to get at your secret data you could simply release it, you know, like a real scientist would.

""We need to have our foot on the gas all the time," he said on Thursday. "We should not be complacent about getting a deal." It was crucial that Britain, and Europe, showed ambition in setting an agenda for a tough, binding agreement and not let the efforts of climate sceptics derail negotiations, he added. "Our children will hold us in contempt if we fail now."

Read between the lines: if we wait for the facts to come out they'll be stringing us up by the dozens in outrage, we have to make this law now so that the science doesn't matter.

[boppers]

5. The data *is* released, and available, for a massive portion of the science.

You want the raw data, go to NASA, NOAA (etc.) and ask, just like they did.

It's only deniers who can't figure out that Whitewater-rethuglican-style "pry into everything about land deals and hope you find a blue dress" tactics don't work in science. Opinions don't matter in the long run, scandals don't matter in the long run, law doesn't matter in the long run, legal harassment doesn't matter in the long run, voting doesn't matter in the long run.

Tree rings, Ice cores, Temperature records, Satellite records... in order for the deniers to be right, there has to have been over 1,500 years of systemic fraud. Might as well try to deny evolution.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised to find a great number of creationists in the anti-science ranks.

[JonQ]

7. Well there's a lot to address there

so here's one point at a time: the tree ring data was used a proxy to estimate temperatures prior to accurate thermometers. All well and good except that miraculously in the 60s they stopped correlating to temperatures in any meaningful way. So they discarded tree ring data from the analysis from that point on and stuck with just the temperatures. Question though, if it stopped working in just the last 40 years, how can you be confident that for the last 10,000 years it worked just fine?

"You want the raw data, go to NASA, NOAA (etc.) and ask, just like they did."

You shouldn't have to search out their data, they should present it along with their analysis. Besides, the raw data isn't the only question, but also how they adjusted it to make their models work (oops, ought to have been the other way around).

"Opinions don't matter in the long run, scandals don't matter in the long run, law doesn't matter in the long run, legal harassment doesn't matter in the long run, voting doesn't matter in the long run."

Nope, only facts matter. Which is why it's odd that they are responding to this by attacking their critics on a personal level, attempting to prevent them from having access to literature and data relevant to the debate, and driving them out of the review process. That doesn't sound like the actions of people who are confident that the facts back them.

"Tree rings, Ice cores, Temperature records, Satellite records... in order for the deniers to be right, there has to have been over 1,500 years of systemic fraud. Might as well try to deny evolution"

The data was collected recently, not over 1,500 years. All of it was subject to reinterpretation. Not a problem per se, but an area of concern as there are many possible paths to choose and statistics can be made to say whatever you like. Evolution also is based on past evidence and only follows the path that organisms take. It does not attempt to make far reaching predictions (by the year 2187 monkeys will have evolved laser eyes, you aren't a denier are you?) and it does not attempt to tie evolution to exclusively on cause, ie human activity. Denying that the world ever changes temperatures for any reason would be equivalent to denying evolution, not questioning the "fact" that by 2020 we are all going to either burn to death or drown under hundreds of feet of water unless we sign an agreement in copenhagen today!

[boppers]

21. I'll address the last paragraph first.

"The data was collected recently, not over 1,500 years."

Ice cores don't just "appear" with thousands of years of data in them.

"All of it was subject to reinterpretation."

All data is. This is why peer review, and counter-interpretation, and cross verification are good things.

"Not a problem per se, but an area of concern as there are many possible paths to choose and statistics can be made to say whatever you like."

This is why other people take a crack at the data, and provide other interpretations, to make sure it isn't one person or group skewing the data to fit their singular conclusion.

"Evolution also is based on past evidence and only follows the path that organisms take. It does not attempt to make far reaching predictions (by the year 2187 monkeys will have evolved laser eyes, you aren't a denier are you?)"

Evolution *does* make far ranging predictions, though. It predicts greater diversity in reproducing species, which may be countered/eliminated by species-wide (or area wide) events, as well as additional changes produced from inter-breeding of variants. It's predicted that the dominant human skin color will likely be light brown, that intelligence in humans will likely keep increasing, etc. Joking about monkeys and lasers is silly, as climate science doesn't predict the likely temperature under a tree by the freeway in Austin, Texas, for July 8, 2054... its not that kind of prediction. Oh, and since all data on evolution was (by your argument) only collected and interpreted in the last 150 years, why don't you question that, too?

"and it does not attempt to tie evolution to exclusively on cause, ie human activity."

No scientist is claiming that climate change only has one cause.

NOT A SINGLE ONE.

It's a strawman, and only the deniers (who don't seem to actually know the science) and alarmists (also, not scientists) would make this kind of bizarre assertion. There are seasonal changes, axis changes, solar output changes, even "siting changes for measurement station" changes... a whole host of regular, expected, changes. The hard issue is figuring out *why* the numbers still look funny after correcting for all the other causes of climate change, and isolating out the possible causes.

"Denying that the world ever changes temperatures for any reason would be equivalent to denying evolution, not questioning the "fact" that by 2020 we are all going to either burn to death or drown under hundreds of feet of water unless we sign an agreement in copenhagen today!"

Please show me where that "all going to burn to death or drown under hundreds of feet of water" has ever been presented as a scientific fact, or I shall be forced to assume that you are lying about your data in order to generate a pre-determined conclusion.

On this:
"Nope, only facts matter. Which is why it's odd that they are responding to this by attacking their critics on a personal level, attempting to prevent them from having access to literature and data relevant to the debate, and driving them out of the review process. That doesn't sound like the actions of people who are confident that the facts back them."

The don't give creationists a podium, either. Creationists often don't really care about facts, and actually prefer to distort and confuse facts provided, so it's less of a hassle to simply stop pretending that all "science" is good science.

One more thing:
"You shouldn't have to search out their data, they should present it along with their analysis. Besides, the raw data isn't the only question, but also how they adjusted it to make their models work (oops, ought to have been the other way around)."

You are obviously unfamiliar with the depth of information usually presented in Scientific Journals, and for that matter, the depth of information required in most science. However, I'm sure if you're willing to pay for the high speed connection, the array of computers, and the data warehousing, they'll be willing to hand it off and work with you. What they *aren't* going to do is buy every crackpot who wants to "do their own examination" a super-computer system and massive internet links, and then have to give them a 8-12 year education just to understand exactly what they're looking at.

edit: stray word

[Hekate]

33. Well done. Very very thorough.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Hekate

[Zoeisright]

58. Excellent points - thank you!

It's interesting that before I logged in, I was able to read all the posts. I logged in to respond to the denier/BecKKK fan only to find I was already ignoring him. I find it very telling that he failed to respond to your points, yet goes around attacking others

[JonQ]

73. . . ..

"Ice cores don't just "appear" with thousands of years of data in them."

Do ice cores tell temperatures (a little frozen thermometer embedded in them perhaps?), or is that inferred from the gas content in them? Again, if their interpretations of proxies for temperatures are subject to manipulation how can those proxies be taken at face value (I notice you ignored the tree ring data).

"All data is. This is why peer review, and counter-interpretation, and cross verification are good things"

Peer review requires that people who disagree are given a chance to review your data. So if they are actively working to shut those people out of the review process peer review does not exist. Which is exactly what they were caught doing. Thank you, I agree, that is why we have peer review, let's give it a shot shall we?

"This is why other people take a crack at the data, and provide other interpretations, to make sure it isn't one person or group skewing the data to fit their singular conclusion."

Again, people who disagreed were driven out of the process and denied access to data and to journals.

"Evolution *does* make far ranging predictions, though."

Predictions that people are free to disagree with without being called "evolution deniers". And those predictions are in no way integral to the overall theory. Sorry but to compare the two is completely off base. Predictions and obvserving historical events are two seperate things.

" It predicts greater diversity in reproducing species, which may be countered/eliminated by species-wide (or area wide) events, as well as additional changes produced from inter-breeding of variants. It's predicted that the dominant human skin color will likely be light brown, that intelligence in humans will likely keep increasing, etc."

And the theory, and research funding relies on these predictions? See the difference?

" Joking about monkeys and lasers is silly, as climate science doesn't predict the likely temperature under a tree by the freeway in Austin, Texas, for July 8, 2054... its not that kind of prediction. Oh, and since all data on evolution was (by your argument) only collected and interpreted in the last 150 years, why don't you question that, too?"

In a large part because there is no money to be made in misinterpreting it, they could simply look at the fossil record and living species rather than developing proxies to infer was species may have existed, the scientists involved freely released their information, were subject to the review process, never tried to drive critics out, and have not been caught admitting to fudging the data? BTW, at the time, do you suppose people who were skeptical about the piltdown man would have been deemed evolution deniers?

"No scientist is claiming that climate change only has one cause"

Ah so many things are at play now, eh? So why only focus on one and completely ignore the other? It is odd that the only issue receiving attention is the one they could get funding to indict.

"Please show me where that "all going to burn to death or drown under hundreds of feet of water" has ever been presented as a scientific fact, or I shall be forced to assume that you are lying about your data in order to generate a pre-determined conclusion."

Someone hasn't been listening to the rhetoric. Since this all came out things have been getting worse apparently. Gaia is angry for our lack of faith and global warming is speeding up, it is almost too late.

"The don't give creationists a podium, either. Creationists often don't really care about facts, and actually prefer to distort and confuse facts provided, so it's less of a hassle to simply stop pretending that all "science" is good science."

Funny you should say that because creationists and intelligent design theorists are often given forums and allowed to discuss their concerns. They lose out once they say "well god did it all". But there is not active effort to shut them out and deny them a forum. Of course we've already determined there is a difference between observing evolution through the fossil record and predicting the weather 200 years from now. But of course creationists have problems on a religious grounds, global warming "deniers" have an issue with the science. It would be nice if they were given a fair shake so that we could actually see a legit peer review of this theory. But it's proponents have actively worked against that (suggesting they aren't as confident as evolutionary biologists are, who mostly react with mild amusement to their critics).

"You are obviously unfamiliar with the depth of information usually presented in Scientific Journals, and for that matter, the depth of information required in most science. However, I'm sure if you're willing to pay for the high speed connection, the array of computers, and the data warehousing, they'll be willing to hand it off and work with you. What they *aren't* going to do is buy every crackpot who wants to "do their own examination" a super-computer system and massive internet links, and then have to give them a 8-12 year education just to understand exactly what they're looking at."

Obviously you haven't been paying attention. They have been caught destroying data as well as refusing to hand it out to legit scientists, many are claiming confidentiality, or a lack of public need in releasing the data : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

Sorry but this is an anomaly in the field of science, no other group have hoarded their raw data so carefully.

Also you didn't address the tree ring issue. Why discard that data when it no longer works but make no account for that fact, and still rely on it in the past (BTW, if you throw it out that sudden increase in the 1900s disappears, and evidence is emerging that the period of global warming enjoyed in ancient europe may not have been entirely local).

And check out what the kiwis have been doing: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

Throw out a few data points that they completely manipulated and the temperature spike disappears. Naturally the leader of that group responded with anger, insults and a refusal to cooperate, as any unbiased and confident scientist would.

[A Physicist]

99. Peer Review?

“Peer review requires that people who disagree are given a chance to review your data. So if they are actively working to shut those people out of the review process peer review does not exist. Which is exactly what they were caught doing. Thank you, I agree, that is why we have peer review, let's give it a shot shall we?”

Disagree?
Are you saying the peer review process is supposed to be adversarial, like a court room trial? Are you saying a paper on evolution should be reviewed by Intelligent Design advocates and Creationists?

“Which is exactly what they were caught doing.”

To me the word “caught” implies guilt. Why not withhold judgment until after the investigation? You seem rather quick on the trigger to besmirch the 1-3 scientists involved in this allegation without giving them a chance to defend themselves based on emails that are clearly subject to interpretation.

[kestrel91316]

103. BTW, the TWO emails in question (of thousands) were edited and

cherrypicked and completely taken out of context.

But the denialists don't care, just like they don't care how many times Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is waved in their faces.

[fascisthunter]

122. ............

I think this needs lots of repeating because the trolls here have a real problem acknowledging that FACT.

This isn't even a debate anymore on Global Warming and man's role. All that we hear from the nay-sayers is juvenile spin.

[janx]

132. That attitude towards peer review jumped out at me, too. n/t

[boppers]

100. Once more, with feeling!

"Do ice cores tell temperatures (a little frozen thermometer embedded in them perhaps?),"
Yes. Turns out that different environmental conditions make different ice than other conditions. Anybody with water, and a freezer (with temperature settings) can replicate it.

"or is that inferred from the gas content in them?"
That's a separate kind of analysis, the gas content can be used for dating the atmosphere to some extent, but there can be as much as (on the far end) 7,000 years difference in the transition between snow, névé, firn, and ice. Volcanic eruptions can deposit ash, winds can deposit dust.... there's lots of different data points in ice cores, it's not just gas bubbles.

"Again, if their interpretations of proxies for temperatures are subject to manipulation how can those proxies be taken at face value (I notice you ignored the tree ring data)."

Firstly, yes, they are approximations, but that doesn't mean that entire sets of data should be ignored out of hand, simply because some people don't like the results. As far as the tree ring data, it's an approximation, albeit one that is trusted less, because the last 100 years have shown strange results. Since trees use CO2 as part of their growth process, and the last 100 years have had a spike in CO2 (when correlated with atmospheric temperature) unmatched in history, it's not surprising that the relationships have changed.

"Peer review requires that people who disagree are given a chance to review your data."

You apparently do not understand peer review. It has nothing to do with "people who disagree". It's about one's "peers", those who are qualified in one's own field and related fields, "review"-ing the overall work. It has nothing to do with adversarial entities second guessing every step of the work, or demanding access to every lab note, material sample, videotape, email, and phone call made.

"So if they are actively working to shut those people out of the review process peer review does not exist."

If you do not understand the process, it's not surprising that you don't understand why they're trying to shut out the cranks and kooks from publishing in legitimate journals.

"Which is exactly what they were caught doing. Thank you, I agree, that is why we have peer review, let's give it a shot shall we?"

Sure, lets have the scientific peers look at the studies. Which is what's been happening. The people "shut.. out" are the fringe elements who rarely get published, because, quite frankly, they're bad at their jobs, so their work is failing when it's subjected to scrutiny.

...
On funding:
"And the theory, and research funding relies on these predictions? See the difference?"

NASA will be funded with, or without, climate change. So will NOAA, and, I assume, most other research agencies. They were funded before the link between climate and greenhouse gases was noticed, they'll be funded regardless of any action taken.

On evolution:
"In a large part because there is no money to be made in misinterpreting it, they could simply look at the fossil record and living species rather than developing proxies to infer was species may have existed,"

Wow, I guess you don't know about transitional forms.

So, a 30 second science lesson: humans are not descended from chimps, nor are chimps descended from humans. A proxy species is used, which both humans and chumps came from. The model works well, and has been used in other species, so the model is re-used.

"the scientists involved freely released their information, were subject to the review process, never tried to drive critics out,..."

Creationists don't get published in legitimate journals on the topic of creationism anymore. They were driven out.

"and have not been caught admitting to fudging the data?"

All science interprets data. Thus, all scientists "fudge" (to use your term) data.

"BTW, at the time, do you suppose people who were skeptical about the piltdown man would have been deemed evolution deniers?"

Only the ones who claim that the Piltdown Man should prove all of evolutionary theory false. This is, in essence, the same problem with the global warming deniers, the people claiming that an email is what's really causing arctic ice melts... any piece of evidence that they can lay hands on, and shriek about, is enough to convince them of their contra-theories.

On causes:
"Ah so many things are at play now, eh?

Always have been. This has been established theory since the 19th century, and anybody with even a passing familiarity with the field knows it.

"So why only focus on one and completely ignore the other? It is odd that the only issue receiving attention is the one they could get funding to indict."

Ignore the other(s)? The only issue receiving attention? Wow, you simply do not know the field at all. Volcanic ash and climate change is funded. Methane and climate change is funded. CO2 and climate change is funded. Solar output and climate change is funded. (etc. etc. etc.) It's a huge field, with lots of different scientists, and lots of funding.

...

I see you have no reference for your wild claims about burning up, or hundreds of feet of water.

...

"Funny you should say that because creationists and intelligent design theorists are often given forums and allowed to discuss their concerns."

They get the same kinds of forums, and attention, and publications, as climate change deniers, or the Velikovsky folks.

"They lose out once they say "well god did it all". But there is not active effort to shut them out and deny them a forum."

The "active effort" you're referring to was scientists rejecting bad science within the publications they submit to.

"They have been caught destroying data as well as refusing to hand it out to legit scientists"...

No, they haven't. That's irresponsible spin.

They don't have *all* the data because some of it was old, thought to be useless, and therefore discarded, but they do have 95% of it. They were refusing to submit to FOI harassment techniques, designed to shut science down with legal manipulation. Any legitimate scientist has easy access to similar (and in most cases, the same) data to create alternate theories and models. None of the alternate theories and models have held up, though.

"Sorry but this is an anomaly in the field of science, no other group have hoarded their raw data so carefully."

What did you say your field was? How much of your data have you published? All of your lab notes? Emails? Phone records? The deniers weren't just asking for "raw data", they were asking for every email, lab note, electronic and paper record, that was in any way related to the study. It's like asking a scientist working on, oh, "mice and brain cancer" for the birth records of every mouse, and then screaming "FRAUD" when the birth records aren't produced, and an email surfaces mocking the request. (The birther reference was intentional, in case it wasn't obvious).

As far as the work the kiwis are doing, it's interesting (though, amusingly that the link shows a clear trend from 1930-2000 on both graphs, but only indicates it in one), and it's regional to one part of the globe... I suppose the really great thing about all this "controversy" is that even *more* resources are being poured in to validate, or refute, existing theory.

Finally, I think we can all say with confidence that in 50-100 years we will know that:
1) The people claiming that nothing is happening will be shown to be wrong.
2) The people claiming that we knew everything there was to know will be shown to be wrong.

edits: typos, format

[kestrel91316]

104. Excellent. It's a good thing SOMEBODY has the patience to refute the

crap sentence by sentence, lol. I sure as hell don't.

[boppers]

111. It takes a wee bit of time and effort. Thankfully, I have both on weekends.

Even more interesting is that at least one person on DU actually personally managed the physical data storage for the US agencies, and has pointed out on a few threads the gross inaccuracies being employed by deniers on a rhetorical, and technical, level.

[kestrel91316]

102. Very good. THAT one probably left a mark, lol.

[A Physicist]

68. I have not heard this before

“not questioning the ‘fact’ that by 2020 we are all going to either burn to death or drown under hundreds of feet of water unless we sign an agreement in copenhagen today!”

Can you provide a link to peer-reviewed research that states Global Warming will cause temperatures to rise to combustion levels and sea levels will rise by hundreds of feet? I keep up with this but I can’t read every paper so if you can point me in the right direction I would appreciate your help.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[panzerfaust]

52. Climate change deniers will cost us our earth

... and, more importantly to them, their political future.

Great article discussing this in the UK Independent (emphases are added)

A generation of young conservative politicians and journalists across the English-speaking world have put down a historic bet that could decimate their movement...

... The conspiracy theory in question, which has been given unparalleled publicity ahead of the Copenhagen summit, goes like this: several thousand leading scientists, seeking to secure research funding, have corrupted global temperature data to stay in the pay of governments bent upon extorting higher taxes through the dissemination of scare stories about so-called global warming. Climate change is a hoax propagated by greedy academics and greens, better described as "the new reds".

Clearly this theory is undiluted lunacy, but its adoption by great swathes of the right is the most significant strategic blunder by a political movement in my lifetime. The great debates of the last century – be they over a woman's right to choose or whether the US should have fought on in Vietnam – have never, and likely will never, be entirely resolved. And even if they were, the public was never likely to exact a catastrophic and permanent political price from the losing side...

But with climate change things are very different, presenting a grave danger to the electoral success of right-wing politics this century. Because man-made climate change is not some abstract political theory but a scientific prediction that will be proven beyond doubt in the years ahead in the form of climate impacts ... will likely see record global temperatures, severe – possibly terminal – depletion of Arctic summer sea ice, huge loss of mass from glaciers, and wildfire epidemics. Taken collectively, these climate signals will be among the most important events in human history. In the decade following, any remaining climate deniers will surely lose their tenuous hold on the levers of influence because the public will witness first hand profound changes to our world...

I wonder if the deniers will be able to give us back our world?

[JonQ]

75. So we shouldn't bother with doing the actual research

because it's "for the children"?

Appeal to emotion to refute logic and facts.

[kestrel91316]

107. So now you are denying that climate research has been done?

This might be news to the hundreds of legitimate climate scientists (you know, PhD types are legitimate universities employing the scientific method and peer review) who have spent many decades doing - gasp - RESEARCH on global warming.

[fascisthunter]

123. you do research.... you think we take you serious

you are arguing AGAINST the global Science Community... are you daft?! Do you really think this is some weird conspiracy to save the earth by lying about man's role in this? If you do, you are an ideological nut that should be ignored.

This shit is obviously too serious of a topic for you to handle.

[panzerfaust]

131. A Question. You are obviously a thoughtful, well educated, and intelligent person...

... thus I know that you will be able to explain why the physics of greenhouse gases do not apply to the atmosphere of the earth: For that is the basic claim being made by the deniers.

Likely there is a Nobel in it for you if you can do so, as the explanation would have to fundamentally change our understanding of optics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetic theory.

[kestrel91316]

106. They don't care about our world, which they consider "fallen" and

tainted by the devil's influence. All they care about is being raptured up to heaven.

[Botany]

54. 420,00 years of data in Antarctica & 100,000 years in Greenland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrd_Polar_Research_Center

Conclusion
There is general consensus from the scientific community that global warming is real and is currently occurring, except for a small but vocal minority.
The Conference Board, a corporate think tank, recently made the following observations:
The greenhouse effect is “real and intensifying”,
human activity is contributing to this, and
corporate boards should be evaluating the risks of continuing business as usual.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

9. Guilt by association eh?

So like, the taliban was opposed to the invasion of afghanistan, ergo everyone who opposed to the war is just like the taliban? :rofl:


And your article is an opinion piece written by a fellow scientist, closing ranks is in vogue it seems. It doesn't refute any of the data, or question it at all in fact, he merely repeats it and claims over and over again that this doesn't matter.

You can't use data to refute the argument if the way the data was manipulated is what is being discussed.

[neverforget]

11. Sorry to point out who your allies are. The truth hurts.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neverforget]

13. so politicians are better at interpreting scientific data than scientists?

now that's idiotic! Who has the agenda here? The fossil fuel industry or the scientists? who stands to lose billions? The fossil fuel industry of course.

[JonQ]

15. What politicians?

Sure there are scientists involved who ended up acting like politicians, that's the problem. But they weren't caught or called out by any politician, in fact most governments are eagerly on board and actively cooperating with the CRU (MMGW would involve massive increases in taxes, government involvement in your day to day life, and permanent expansions in government, I wonder why they support it?).

"Who has the agenda here? The fossil fuel industry or the scientists? who stands to lose billions? The fossil fuel industry of course. "

Who has seen their research budgets triple, and then some following MMGW becoming big news? Overall we've spent billions on global warming research in new funding since this became a major concern. Who is making billions of clean fuel technology and green initiatives (quite a few people, gore is on his way to becoming a billionaire in fact). There is a lot of money to be made or lost on both sides, pretending only one side has financial incentives is dishonest. Can you deny this? Do you really think money only influences one side, and the other is perfectly pure, angelic in fact?

Also, this wasn't uncovered by evil scary oil companies, nor is it relying on contradictory evidence supplied by their bought researchers. Sorry, that boogey man isn't going to work this time.

[neverforget]

16. Dear God! You're comparing the science budgets to the oil companies

funded "scientists" and propaganda? Seriously? I never knew that scientists were more powerful than the oil and coal industry.

[JonQ]

17. Wow, you aren't getting this

the oil companies aren't involved in this round. You have them held up as pretty much the devil, capable of influencing everything, and hiding behind every rock.

They are not involved in climategate 2009 (prove that they are). So sorry, but they aren't going to cut it as a distraction this time around. Besides, is this how you believe science is conducted? With "oh yeah, my data might be flawed, but at least I'm not on the side of (insert scary sounding corporation)!"? No, you don't think that, you are attempting to derail the conversation with minutia. So I think the big oil boogey man can be put to rest and ignored as irrelevant from now on. Excellent.

And can you deny that their funding has gone up following the adoption of MMGW as a major issue? Yes or no please, not "well big oil . . . ".

[neverforget]

18. Climategate! Only in your head. So glaciers aren't melting? Sea levels

aren't rising? The ice sheet on Greenland isn't melting? All this from emails? Those are some powerful emails!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neverforget]

20. That's what the scientists are saying. More CO2 from industry is more than

the Earth can handle. But you don't care. Keep on getting your "facts" from your allies because you already have an opinion and you're not changing it obviously. Denial is deep.

[JonQ]

23. Yes that is what the scientists

embroiled in this controversy are saying, to the benefit of their budgets and jobs. The fact that their data is suspect means their analysis is suspect don't you think?

"More CO2 from industry is more than the Earth can handle."

According to those same scientists, who are compromised. Do you know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere right now, as a percentage? Look it up, it may shock you.

The facts are that CO2 is not the worst, nor most abundant greenhouse gas. It is merely the only one that can be easily detected and can be tied back to all human activities just about.

"But you don't care."

Wrong again, I very much care about the science behind this. If it is flawed we have wasted billions and need to stop immediately. You are the one who doesn't care what the facts are, you have a conclusion and have run with it.


"Keep on getting your "facts" from your allies because you already have an opinion and you're not changing it obviously. "

My allies, wow. You really think that tribal level thinking applies here? Well, to you, yes. But not to real scientists. Look I don't even care if you don't changer your mind, just stay out of the debate and don't vote on the issue if you are unwilling to research it. Keep your religion, just keep it out of my life.

Also you failed to answer my last two questions.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

94. Ah, I see how you refute arguments you don't like

report the "offending belief" to the mods and get it censored.

Kind of the same way scientists have reached a consensus on MMGW. No counter argument = every supports it = it must be true, nevermind that you have actively worked to silence what would have been a thriving debate.

[neverforget]

136. wow.

:eyes:

[JonQ]

138. I know

pathetic right?

[neverforget]

139. !

:crazy:

[Hissyspit]

37. "CO2 is not the worst, nor most abundant greenhouse gas."

Right-wing climate change denial talking point, and one of the sillier ones.

That does not matter. All that matters is if increasing human-produced CO2 results in the climate change that we are seeing and that is predicted.

Watch this and learn and then watch the whole series (I know you won't): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c

[JonQ]

77. Again

that only works if the temperatures they've come up with are accurate, and that is suspect.

If C02 levels "perfectly" match their temperatures, then it turns out their temperatures are incorrect, does the model still work? Yes/no please.

[boppers]

27. ..."the Earth can handle"?

The earth can handle it just fine, as it's handled these kind of levels and temperatures before.

Humans and other modern species, on the other hand, might have some.... adjustment issues.

:evilgrin:

[neverforget]

28. Thanks for straightening that out.

[boppers]

31. One of my favorite Gore-isms:

"He doesn't seem to be growing any gills!"

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/255173/november-04-2009/formidable-opponent---global-warming-with-al-gore

[liberation]

32. Thank YOU!

Somehow the deniers seem to think nature consults their opinion before carrying on...

How self centred as a species we are sort of baffles me sometimes. It should not even be a question to begin with... it should not be that we have to chose between our economic activity and our environment. Because we need to come to terms with the fact that we took the wrong turn somehow somewhere. I truly think that in the back of their minds, some people do really think they can buy somehow out of this reality. As if nature accepted checks....

We really are going to kill ourselves in order to survive. We are the same species that produced Einstein, the 9th symphony, played golf on the moon, and yet we're too stupid to figure out that shitting where you drink from is not a good idea.

[parts]

25. They do not, in themselves prove as much but the evidence suggests a correlation.

A question for YOU.

Is there a massive conspiracy of virtually every legitimate scientific organization consisting of almost every top-level climate scientist to delude the world in this regard? Is there perhaps a Protocols of the Elders of Zion-esque conspiracy to defraud, mislead and damage the world through manipulation of data in order to enrich themselves?

[DissedByBush]

45. Correlation doesn't equal causation

Always remember that.

Mixing this up is a very popular theme of the religious right wing when they're going after whatever happens to be pissing them off at the moment.

[parts]

48. Very true, dissed.

But in science, it's often all there is to work on. Moreover, its a very, very strong positive linear relationship, and there's little reason to believe - short of a cabal - that there is an other explanation than man-made causes.

We need a strong Copenhagen. Now. My country will be swamped, otherwise.

[DissedByBush]

92. Even if it is true

The second assumption is whether we can do anything about it.

[JonQ]

78. Fair question

I would first say that a correlation obviously is not a causation, and that that correlation is based on climate data which is now suspect.

"Is there a massive conspiracy of virtually every legitimate scientific organization consisting of almost every top-level climate scientist to delude the world in this regard? Is there perhaps a Protocols of the Elders of Zion-esque conspiracy to defraud, mislead and damage the world through manipulation of data in order to enrich themselves?"

No, and such a conspiracy would be unnecessary to get these results. First off every science organization isn't studying this. Climate scientists are a fairly small group. For this to work several things would have to happen. 1) funding would have to be allocated based on politically desirable results (it's no coincidence that these researchers are all working on public funds). This would effectively drive out those who "fail to produce the desired conclusions" preventing them from showing counter arguments and strongly encouraging existing and future researchers to tow the company line (if the alternative is losing your job and dying in obscurity it's amazing how many ways you can tweak data). And it doesn't even have to be blatant, like throwing away old data. Merely not reporting certain data points, using a different metric to adjust pesky ones that don't show what you want or discarding outliers that show obviously the wrong trend (wink wink). 2) a few well placed individuals would need to work to prevent the already reduced number of critics from being allowed to publish, this has been done and the emails established this fact. Simply set up criticism of MMGW as not being science, then shut them out of the debate, then claim a consensus because no one is arguing with you. Respond to other critics by saying "well if we were wrong, where are all the counter arguments"? Simple, effective. 3) Again a few key scientists need to become enmeshed in politics and help set the public debate, branding everyone who disagrees as effectively holocaust deniers. That will discourage new voices of dissent from arising (who wants to be a holocaust denier?).

There, a very small number of politicians seeing opportunity and a very small number of scientists seeking funding would be all it takes to accomplish this. The rest will sort of fall in line.

[niceypoo]

62. Show a single whitepaper that touts your position

There are exactly zero.

Show us your peer reviewed whitepapers showing the sun is heating up or Mars is getting hotter, we need a good laugh.

[JonQ]

79. Interesting

I guess that proves their are none. Or an active effort by those involved is driving dissenting views from publishing. Oh wait, that's exactly what they admitted to in those emails!

It's a clever and simple system that has absolutely convinced the proles in to going along with it: silence your critics, then use their silence as proof that they don't exist.


I'm sure no one disagreed with stalin in the USSR either, but I will take that claim with a grain of salt as well.

[Thor_MN]

65. "Ignore the man behind the curtain"

Nice try, you don't get to define boundries of the discussion to benefit your arguement. There are two groups in the climate change denier camps, those that have a financial interest (oil companies, polluting corporations) and those too stupid not to simply parrot the talk radio blatherings of the first crowd.

The right wing has been dithering for years saying that more study is needed, now they are going to claim that the funding for the very studies they called for are proof of falsified data?

[JonQ]

80. Ignore the man behind the curtain

Nice try, you don't get to define boundries of the discussion to benefit your arguement. There are two groups in the climate change hysterics camp, those that have a financial interest (politicians, people who own stocks in "green" companies, researchers worried about funding cuts) and those too stupid not to simply parrot the doomsday blatherings of the first crowd.

The left wing has been claiming for years saying that more study is needed, now that those results are suspect the time to consider science and research is over, we must act decisively.

[kestrel91316]

108. Prove to us that the hackers weren't hired by the fossil fuel profiteers.

[JonQ]

121. Prove to us that you aren't the anti-christ

But again, thank you for illustrating my point: what they uncovered is irrelevant if the argument can be redirected in to personal attacks.

They probably molest children and take the lords name in vain too. I'm sure to people like you that would make a difference. To me a lie from a saint is not preferable to the truth from a devil.

[A Physicist]

63. Clarification of terms

“(MMGW would involve massive increases in taxes, government involvement in your day to day life, and permanent expansions in government, I wonder why they support it?).”

Can you tell me what type of taxes would increase and by how much? The word “massive” is scientifically vague.

Can you tell me what form this “government involvement in your day to day life” would take so I can evaluate more fully?

[JonQ]

81. Ok

Cap and trade is a good start. Look in to what that will cost us.

Also, carbon dioxide is produced by just about every human activity. Regulating it would require regulating human activity. That cannot be denied.

It would require regulations on transportation, the type of home you are allowed to have, industrial output (directly affecting quality of life) trade, the clothes you are allowed to wear, really there is feature of your life a clever politician couldn't work this in to.

[A Physicist]

88. This all seem speculative

Can you be more specific and less general?

[JonQ]

90. It is speculative because it's based on what

will happen once this becomes set in law.

It isn't really all that unlikely though given history; when have politicians used a massive increase in their power to reduce their actual powers?

It is entirely possible the government will declare global warming real (ending the debate effectively) and announce that we must do something about it or die, then do nothing, and not take that opportunity to make a grab for power. But I'm skeptical on that front.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. Whoa up there - weren't you saying the other day that Kucinich is a republican

because he voted against some legislation that republicans also voted against? Even though the reasons were diametriaclly opposite?

Oh, I get it. He disagrees with them, so he must be exactly like them. You, on the other hand, completely agree with them, so you're not anything like them.:banghead:

[JonQ]

82. No, I don't think I ever said that

Could you find the quote?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

83. Hehe

predictable response.

"Look, someone threatening our ideological purity with terrifying facts, send him to the gulags for the good of us all!"

It would be cute if people who ought to know better weren't also doing it.

[parts]

112. Seriously though

You quoted one of my earlier messages to the effect that the extent of a required conspiracy is very small. Nonsense. You know one of the leading sources of climate change data? NASA. One of the few - come to think of it, probably one of the only - organizations with the technology, resources (satellites) and time to make any groundbreaking, original discoveries with regard to the existence, or lack thereof, of man-made climate change.

Scientific endeavor has an integrity of its own. Yes - obviously climate change advocates stand to "gain", in the very short run and as the term is normally understood, if people back climate change science and take steps like cap and trade, etc.

Here's the problem with extrapolating from that and concluding that the climate change science has an incestuous relationship with itself, and is therefore unreliable. In EVERY SINGLE facet of science, scientists stand to gain if more people come to agree with their discoveries and insights. Nanotechnology now. Vaccination then. Medicine since forever - or do you not go to the doctor because he stands to gain if you believe in all this obviously self-interested "bacteria" and "viruses" and "antibiotics"?

You know what keeps science reliable, therefore? The scientific method. Scientific rigor, scientific integrity. Experts checking on experts' work. Not oil industry lobbyists', and certainly not John Q. Public (no offence, because of the startling coincidence) without the training and the expertise necessary.

I'm not arguing for your benefit, nor any deniers on this thread - I don't expect you to reply and agree with me, because frankly you're too far gone. But there's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on and a lot of confused people who don't understand the science but read one or two talking points and assume that it makes sense.

It's really very simple. Massive conspiracy by scientists (the only people who really understand the facts as is) or no massive conspiracy. Period.

[JonQ]

115. NASA doesn't

present the adjusted data, just the raw data. NASA doesn't dredge up and infer data from 10,000s of years in the past (tree ring, core samples, lake sediment, etc).

If we were just looking at hard data from the time of NASAs creation onward the entire theory would be meaningless). The issue is not the raw data itself per se, but the interpretation thereof. NASA is not a leading proponent of manmade global warming, that is a theory that requires interpretation and manipulation of data (the CRU completely disregards the little ice age and medieval warming period to make their hockeystick graph work, those are major events that can't simply be ignored!).

"
It's really very simple. Massive conspiracy by scientists (the only people who really understand the facts as is) or no massive conspiracy. Period."

According to you, not according to reality.

[parts]

117. I seriously don't know what you're talking about

Is your point that NASA doesn't believe in ManMadeGlobalWarming (let's just call it MMGW, shall we?) Because you're wrong.

I don't understand the science. You don't want to hear this, but You don't understand the science. And so, with all due respect, I'm going to let this rest. Because, listen, JonQ, you don't believe in climate change science. I get it. Everyone gets it. But you've taken your disbelief to the level of faith - it's gotta be that THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD is mistaken, it can't just be you - and you can't argue with faith. It's, by definition, diametrically opposed to reason. So I'm just going to let it rest. You're entitled to your opinion - no serious world leader besides, conveniently, OPEC countries - agrees with it, so you can believe it, and go on believing it, and the world'll move on without you, and that'll be that.

I can't help but cock this snook - you know who else doesn't believe in global warming? RWers, generally. Tony Abbott in Australia, Inhofe in America, conservatives the world over. You know why? Because of the arrogance required to hold such a belief in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus, the existence of which is a fact.

Are you a RWer? I wouldn't have asked, but you also replied directly to one of my posts advocating executing mentally retarded people, so, you know, the question begged itself.

[JonQ]

118. You are quite mistaken here

in many ways. The facts are the MMGW is presented very much as a matter of faith (the science is settled, no more questions will be tolerated, heretics must be shunned, and the like).

It is increasingly becoming evident that a great portion of their data used to formulate these models was misleading at best and requires the dismissal of historic variations in temperatures to work. I assume you still have faith in the hockey stick graph? You do know that the model was such that any random data put in to it will generate that same trend right?

You must realize that science is not done by hiding or destroying data, or silencing those who disagree, or insisting that there is no time for debate, we must accept your hypothesis and act on it. Those sound more like religion to me. Which is why there is such a violent and childish reaction to any who challenge this faux-religion. You seem to believe politics and a false consensus (no one argues, because they've successfully prevented skeptics from being published, censorhip apparently equals agreement) are superior to the free exchange of ideas, transparency and the scientific method.

Enjoy your end of the world cult, in a few years I suspect most hysterics will be attempting to distance themselves from the whole movement and pretend it was never a real issue, that . . . (insert new cause) was always the issue. Same as how they quietly slid from global warming to global climate change.

[parts]

119. I'll bite.

What's the difference between global warming and global climate change?

[JonQ]

120. To be substantiated

"global warming" requires, you know, the globe to warm.

Global climate change requires only aberrant weather. So too cold, too hot, too rainy, too dry, too many or too few hurricanes/tornadoes/droughts/floods. Essentially anything can be used to defend climate change, no direction is required. Of course average weather is discarded (proves nothing either way). It's really a clever change, I give kudos to the PR department on that one. They've taken what to sensible people is axiomatic (the weather always changes) and turned it in to proof that the entire world is out of whack.

Now the momentum is still behind the globe getting warmer, but they now have a convenient out to explain when it doesn't (it was never about warming, it was always about climate change). Global warming can be measured, change cannot. So when somebody says "I question mans role in global climate change" they can always retort "who can doubt that the climate changes, it has been shown to change radically over millenia, you are an idiot".

Brilliant. Not science, but good public manipulation.

[parts]

134. I thought it would be something like that

buildup was good, but delivery was poor.

You're saying now ALL aberrational weather data (not climate, because climate is clearly, convincingly, demonstrably heating) is being spun as evidence of MMGW. You'd be right inferring some PR work on that spin - if it weren't for the fact that aberrational weather is meant to be, you know, aberrational, and it's not, not any more. It's becoming the new normal. And that implies that something far greater than the pitch and toss of fate is at work here.

"As the planet grows ever warmer, and former cold zones give way to rising temperatures, plant and animal species are being affected. Wading birds such as the ringed plover now spend winters in the east of Britain rather than on the west coast. Polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct, as the ice shelves disappear and they are forced to swim further distances, resulting in many drowning. The habitat of the arctic fox is also in danger. Seal habitat is shrinking. Harlequin frogs are dying, the result of a fungus spurred on by the warmer weather. Krill shrimp, the food of Adeline penguins, are decreasing because warmer ocean waters are killing algae, in turn shrinking the penguins' habitat. Monarch butterflies' migration path has changed. Cold water fish and arctic reefs are in danger from warmer sea temperatures.

Already, Canadian Inuit village life is being transformed as rising temperatures are thinning the ice and leading to a loss of hunting and polar bears."

- http://climatechange.ws/weather/

You're saying that random distribution of outlier data is being spun as climate change bollocks. But what the problem really is is that the outliers have become the new normal distribution function. And THAT'S the real story, and any spin on this comes from the deniers.

[JonQ]

141. Not a good time to be a global warming hysteric

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/12/climate-scientist-to-revkin-we-can-lo-longer-trust-you-to-carry-water-for-us.php

It's odd, but for some reason a theory which is absolutely true (not even a theory really, a law!) seems to have been the strongest when the least was revealed about it, and weakened substantially the more we look in to it.

That doesn't make sense does it?

"You're saying that random distribution of outlier data is being spun as climate change bollocks. But what the problem really is is that the outliers have become the new normal distribution function. And THAT'S the real story, and any spin on this comes from the deniers."

Except that normal days are discarded, and outliers are not all that unusual. That's why on any given day the historic low and high are very different. That's why averages are meaningless with the variance posted along with it. The average of 100 degrees and 0, is the same as the average of 55 and 45.

[parts]

142. Alright, thank you.

You're spouting complete bollocks.

The urgency and stridency of climate change warnings correspond with growing knowledge of the scale of the problem. The urgency of the predictions have become IN NO WAY less dire over time and with more "disclosures" and "evidences" of leaks - and if you think so, then there's really nothing I can say. You clearly have no knowledge of current affairs, if you think the alarm bells about MMGW are getting less, not more, shrill.

There has been no data discarded. None. Zero. Old copies taking up space. If you don't trust scientists to be honest with the collated data, then how about you stop using the computer - no idea what it might be doing to you, and no way to find out because WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE THEY'RE HIDING?? zomgz. Stop taking medicine. Stop doing anything related to technological advancements from about the 18th century onward, when the scientific method began to become more defined with the advent of the Royal Society.

If you can't see that drastic, outlying changes are taking place at a terrifying pace (2004 Boxing Day tsunami, shrinking sheep in Scotland, extinctions of species unable to keep up, droughts, melting glaciers...) then you literally don't know anything about the state of the world because all these have been headline news for years. Oh - I'm sorry - evil hoaxy scientists at work, I forgot.

Thank you for your time, the extent of your ignorance has been highly illuminating. Let's end this fruitless discussion; I see your problem now and why exactly you are incapable of understanding the facts of MMGW - you're not just arrogant, you're ignorant.

[JonQ]

143. False

"The urgency and stridency of climate change warnings correspond with growing knowledge of the scale of the problem."

They correspond with A) the need for more funding and B) the rate at which people are starting to question it. As the science comes more in to question I expect the consequences of not acting will become ever more dire (although they've already decided the entire population might die, maybe they should have paced themselves). Essentially preaching even greater hellfire and damnation to get the straying congregation back in to the pews.

"The urgency of the predictions have become IN NO WAY less dire over time and with more "disclosures" and "evidences" of leaks - and if you think so, the"n there's really nothing I can say.

No, actually they've become more dire once they realized those predictions were great PR.

"You clearly have no knowledge of current affairs, if you think the alarm bells about MMGW are getting less, not more, shrill."

I believe I've stated the opposite in fact, so yeah, you agree with me.

"There has been no data discarded. None. Zero. Old copies taking up space. If you don't trust scientists to be honest with the collated data, then how about you stop using the computer - no idea what it might be doing to you, and no way to find out because WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE THEY'RE HIDING?? zomgz. Stop taking medicine. Stop doing anything related to technological advancements from about the 18th century onward, when the scientific method began to become more defined with the advent of the Royal Society"

Ok, you've become unhinged. This is a problem but we can get through this. Don't worry, this happens when ones faith is challenged. I suggest you go to a quiet spot, close the windows and turn off the TV. Breathe deeply and repeat "global warming will kill us all" over and over again. It should pass.

"If you can't see that drastic, outlying changes are taking place at a terrifying pace (2004 Boxing Day tsunami, shrinking sheep in Scotland, extinctions of species unable to keep up, droughts, melting glaciers...) then you literally don't know anything about the state of the world because all these have been headline news for years. Oh - I'm sorry - evil hoaxy scientists at work, I forgot."

You make the same mistake (intentional?) that everyone else who is forced to defend this sham(e) must make at some point: questioning MMGW = denying that the temperature has ever changed for any reason. We have three questions here: at what rate and in what direction is the globe change temps, how does that compare to historical epochs and what is mans role in this. You've cleverly narrowed it down to one question, determined the answer and then run with that.

"Thank you for your time, the extent of your ignorance has been highly illuminating. Let's end this fruitless discussion; I see your problem now and why exactly you are incapable of understanding the facts of MMGW - you're not just arrogant, you're ignorant."

That's alright, I know you're just offended because I questioned your religion. Really I'm used to it, and when this all falls apart if you were to apologize and say you were mistaken and you shouldn't have taken out your insecurities on me I will accept, immediately.

So go with gaia my possibly future-friend! Keep your eyes open and when the evidence accumulating against this becomes too great for even the strongest faith to repel then we will talk again.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JonQ]

91. Personal attacks

yep, that's what "proving" a scientific point are all about.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hissyspit]

39. Yawn.

[phasma ex machina]

40. +1

[Hissyspit]

42. Nonsense.

[JonQ]

85. balderdash

[20score]

46. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is an undeniable, long established fact.

The fact that humans burning fossil fuel increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is also undeniable. That part is basic, and you really should educate yourself by reading a book on climatology.

Furthermore, if people like Inhof, Beck and the rest of the propagandists turned out to be correct and science doesn't work when its conclusions cut into profits, (which is insulting, of course) and "the scientists" tricked us into burning less fossil fuel, then the worst outcome will be that we pollute less, increase employment, and import less oil - which also helps our trade deficit.

So, keep focusing on any minutia that diverts our attention away from the real issues so we can keep on doing the wrong thing! Good luck with that.

[fasttense]

51. Yes, it is all one giant conspiracy to save the planet.

Those evil scientists will destroy our world by pushing for ecologically friendly, environmentally sound and less expensive alternative energy sources.

We must preserve the profits of our kind and loving CEOs and oil corporations. They alone should reap the rewards of fossil fuel energy consumption. The oil corporation and coal barons are selected by God to rules us with their enormous fortunes. We must continue unabated wars to capture scarce oil resources. We must stop all this horror of saving species and cleaning the air, water and ground we all live off of.

If climate change scientist have their way, we will all be doomed to living among multiple species of animals and plants, doomed forever to reap clean water, breath pure air and walk over uncontaminated earth. We are all doomed, I tell you Doomed to be manipulated into saving the only planet humans can survive upon.

Do I really need to tell you this is :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[20score]

96. Actually it's a pathetic point.

[A Physicist]

71. Has the CRU investigation report been released?

The term “redhanded” implies the investigation report has been released; can you please provide a link to this report?

“‘We need to have our foot on the gas all the time," he said on Thursday. "We should not be complacent about getting a deal.’ It was crucial that Britain, and Europe, showed ambition in setting an agenda for a tough, binding agreement and not let the efforts of climate sceptics derail negotiations, he added. ‘Our children will hold us in contempt if we fail now.’”

“Read between the lines: if we wait for the facts to come out they'll be stringing us up by the dozens in outrage, we have to make this law now so that the science doesn't matter.”

Can you tell me your screen resolution settings so I can set mine so I too can “read between the lines”?

[A Physicist]

72. XTran codes

You seem well informed on Global Warming, can you explain the XTran codes to me; how they work and where I can go to download them?

Thanks

[sudopod]

140. What's that flag to compile 32 bit code, again?

lol

[ananda]

6. How insane the world is right now!

Truly insane!

[timeforpeace]

10. As Maxwell Smart was wont to say, we were THAT close. Now it's all coming apart.

[defendandprotect]

14. It's also clear that right wing will always resort to aggression in a losing debate ...

[CoffeeCat]

26. I doubt their after data...

My guess is that they're looking for something incriminating--racy emails from a mistress, naughty pictures
that he downloaded.

They were looking for blackmail material, to intimidate him, shut him up or alter his behavior in some way.

I just have a hard time believing that thug criminals--would be after scientific data, so they could scurry
away to their computers--where they analyze the data, spend hours studying and then craft intelligent
counter arguments. That just seems a bit incongruent.

Criminals don't launch an operation to steal research---so they can spend hours writing thoughtful arguments
against the stolen research.

These guys were hoping for some dirt--to give them some leverage in shutting him up.

This researcher must be on the precipice of making a big difference in the world.

[liberation]

34. The data is freely available...

... what I always found interesting is that no one is stopping the deniers from collecting their own data, and analyze it as well and provide the burden of the proof it is required from them.

But you know why the won't do that? Because that requires tons of money, and the people who are backing for the most part these deniers are looking at their profit first above any other consideration... and as such they are taking the cheapest route to make their case: not having to prove their accusations against the majority of climate scientists in the world.

So when it comes to chose between those who put profit over all else and spend little money and effort trying to make their point, vs those who have no profit and spend a lot of their time and effort making theirs... to me at least, it is a no brainer.

[tinrobot]

43. They seem to want words that can be twisted.

Find something trivial and blow it up into a manufactured 'scandal' designed to cast doubt on climate science.

When you can't defeat the message, go after the messenger.

[janx]

133. The same modus operandi works re the

promotion of "intelligent design" :

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/ShowMetheScience.pdf

[Warren Stupidity]

29. So there is clearly an organized effort to sabotage copenhagen

Who is paying the bills? Isn't data theft as in the emails stolen two weeks ago a felony? 'climate change deniers'? Sorry, but somebody is paying for this and they are engaged in a conspiracy to commit felonies that at the least runs into RICO laws.

[liberation]

35. Copenhagen will be DOA if the USA does not ratify it.

And I don't think Mr. Obama will.

[tinrobot]

44. Sadly, the Senate will have final say on the treaty.

I doubt that the GOP will budge on this, and I doubt it will clear the 2/3 majority required by the Senate.

[panzerfaust]

53. Here is a possibility, from a country dependent upon gas/oil/coal production

Russian computer hackers are suspected of being behind the stolen emails used by climate sceptics to discredit the science of global warming in advance of tomorrow's Copenhagen climate negotiations, the United Nations' deputy climate chief said yesterday.

"This was not a job for amateurs," said Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), referring to the theft of the emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA)...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-conspiracies-stolen-emails-used-to-ridicule-global-warming-1835031.html

[Hissyspit]

38. Posted Friday: "Repeated Break-ins Point to ‘Orchestrated Campaign’ by Climate Skeptics"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7157495

[tinrobot]

41. Its a conspiracy to manufacture a fake 'conspiracy'

The real conspiracy involves a coordinated effort of breaking into climate scientist's computers.

The goal of this conspiracy is find words that can be taken out of context to manufacture a "conspiracy" among climate scientists.

[20score]

47. Maybe some true activists, that really do care about truth should do this to right-wing think tanks

and oil companies. They really do have conspiracies to keep the truth from people in those places.

In this case turnabout is fair play.

[old mark]

56. I have often wondered what "right wing think tanks" actually have to think about.

A lot of money seems to be going in, nothing much ever comes out.....


mark

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. Problem is, RW think tanks are not think tanks -

they're just propaganda mills.

the only thing to find there would be the talking point of the day.

[dreamnightwind]

89. It takes a lot of thinking to sell a false reality

Underestimate them at your peril. Right-wing think tanks, to some degree, rule the world. They're staffed by brilliant men with incredible intellects (too bad they lack the wisdom to put their intellects in the service of a better world view). Heritage, American Enterprise Institute, CATO, these are the people whose ideas become policy, unfortunately.

I've long felt that this is a huge part of our problem. Right-wing think tanks are well-funded (no surprise), and have streamlined the mechanisms for moving their BS from their desks through the main stream media into the minds of policy makers and citizens alike.

I've watched more than my share of right-wing think tank talks on C-SPAN, all 3 of the ones I mentioned above. They have their own arguments supported by their own facts (and they do have reams of data they use to support their lies, very frightening when you dig down into this stuff, the way they're able to obscure reality with cooked and mis-interpreted numbers). They're quite good at presenting what appears to be reasoned analysis and extracting policy from it. No shortage of thinking or brain-power there.

The left has long suffered from a think-tank defecit, IMO. The other side is light years ahead of us. Truth is on our side, but that's a mere inconvenience to the forces of the right, with their funding, their think tanks, their media mouthpieces, too often they are able to define what passes for truth in this nation.

I don't mean to oppose what you're saying, I imagine we agree on this stuff, just taking the opportunity to expand on an issue that has bothered me for a long time, corporate/right dominance of ideas and policy through their think tank - industrial complex.

[Delphinus]

95. I agree with you -

about the think tanks and underestimating their power. Truth doesn't seem to matter much. What a world (or perhaps society/civilization would be a better word) this could be if they spent time envisioning a future that respects all life.

[dreamnightwind]

86. +1

Excellent idea, I'm sure their emails would make for some good reading.

[NecklyTyler]

49. The right wing deniers weren't looking for climate data

The deniers were looking for insight as to how climate scientists and the academic community are going to put the CRU email incident to rest. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Britain is conducting a investigation and will soon have a rebuttal to the email theft. The deniers have already peaked and have noting else to offer on the subject. Stealing our play book is the only option the deniers have left

[DeSwiss]

50. I've noticed that whenever conservative deniers....

...run up against FACTS they can't understand, this is their recourse. They start with lies. Now they've moved to thefts.

- The only thing left now is violence. And then the circle will be complete idiots......


"It's not flat either."


K&R

[LiberalFighter]

55. Is it just climate change deniers, end of times people that may have a hand in this?

How about those connected to the energy industry? There are plenty of wackos that would go to any lengths to dispel and disrupt the research.

[old mark]

57. Energy lobby puts up the money and the instigates the "religious"

jerks to do the dirty work. The "religious" are not concerned with facts anyway, just fulfillment of their own fantasy lives.

mark

[RufusTFirefly]

60. Yes. Exactly. It's a cynical ploy. And an effective one.

Reminds me of when Jack Abramoff got a bunch of fundies together to oppose the building of a casino. ("The devil's tool," and all that.) What the fundies didn't realize is that Abramoff was secretly representing another casino that felt threatened by the prospect of a new gambling house so close by. The fanatics did all the work so he could make the money.

[RufusTFirefly]

59. Create confusion. That's the key. And they are succeeding

[pscot]

66. Sounds like a criminal conspiracy

Does Canada have a RICO statute?

[Garam_Masala]

93. How stupid are these anti-global warming idiots?

How do they think the last ice age ended?

Yap! Very powerful global warming some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago!

[JonQ]

97. I think calling it "global warming"

is just a convenient shorthand for "man made global warming".

No one denies that the world has changed temperatures many times in the past. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the temperature of the earth is in constant flux, there is no normal set point to refer back to.

So when people debate "global warming" they mean (with the exception of those who believe the world is only 6,000 years old perhaps) global warming attributable to human activity, not naturally occurring changes that are out of our hands.

[Psephos]

101. It's not "man-made global warming"

It's Mann-made global warming. ;)

[boppers]

110. Yes, there is no "set point", and there is an expected rate of change.

What is different about the last 100 years causing such an unusual spike in change, statistically outside of the range of expected changes? Is the spike just a "blip", something to throw out if it doesn't match pre-conceived notions?

[JonQ]

116. Actually you only get that

"massive increase in temperature in the last 100 years" if you manipulate the data.

There was an equivalent spike in the middle ages that had to be removed to make that graph more dramatic. Also the past data was based on proxy data points, most of which were discarded to make the model work (and all of which have been discarded recently because their reactions don't match up with the actual temperatures, but the past data based on them is kept, odd isn't it?).

The blip only works if you accept their interpretation of the data, which is not a direct measurement of the worlds temperature.

[boppers]

137. The increase is shown in non-"dramatised" data, as well.

If I may introduce a term for the sake of discussion, you seem to be noting the medieval warm period, and have concerns that, for lack of a better term, the data is being "dramatized".

So, let's play some contra-theory:
Is there reasonable proof the climate is NOT changing?
Is there reasonable proof that humans cannot have any effect on climate changes?

[fascisthunter]

124. ideological blind or working for partisan purposes to cloud the issue

and seed doubt in the minds of those who are too ignorant to know the difference. Arguing with them only gives them more attention than they deserve... but we have to put up with it here daily.

[JonQ]

127. Science isn't about ideology

or theology. It isn't about sides or winning. You inadvertently expressed all that is wrong in this debate.

Thank you for illustrating it better than any number of arguments from me could have.

[fascisthunter]

128. science is not about ideology, and your argument isn't based on science

very true

[JonQ]

129. Sigh

very juvenile argument from you. Not interesting in the least. More of the "nuh uh", and "well your mom . . ." nonsense that I've come to expect.

[yurbud]

98. the oil companies must be feeling the heat...

[beyond cynical]

113. I wonder what he is hiding...?

:shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

126. Is that you Joseph McCarthy?

I wonder why you wonder what's he's hiding, instead of wondering what kind of low life would break in to a person's office and steal their computer with absolutely no regard or respect for property or personal privacy?

[Doctor_J]

114. Another group of terrorists that will go unpunished

Death squads will be part of our very near future.

[fascisthunter]

125. it's nice to see people defend this crap in a round-about way

that is the global warming denial... it's perverted and very dangerous to lie about shit that is this serious.

[Mr. James]

135. How cute.

Rednecks want to be like the hackers, but don't have the computer skills.