Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails

[FarCenter]

'All our models are wrong', writes Jones

There was always an element of tragedy in the first “Climategate” emails, as scientists were under pressure to tell a story that the physical evidence couldn’t support – and that the scientists were reluctant to acknowledge in public. The new email archive, already dubbed “Climategate 2.0”, is much larger than the first, and provides an abundance of context for those earlier changes.

“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story,” a civil servant wrote to Phil Jones in 2009. “They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”

Having elevated global warming to the most dramatic, urgent and over-riding issue of the day, bureaucrats, NGOs, politicians and funding agencies demanded that the scientists must keep the whole bandwagon rolling. It had become too big to stop.

“The science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” laments one scientist, Peter Thorne. While Professor Jagadish Shukla, a lead IPCC author, IGES founder, and one of the most senior climate experts writes that, “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

With the release of FOIA2011.zip, the cat’s now well and truly out of the bag.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/23/climategate_2_first_look/

[sharp_stick]

1. Give me thousands of emails

on a topic, any topic, from a single group and I will be just as successful at ferreting out an out of context piece of shit line from those emails as any of the fucking tools doing it with this pile of emails.

Far too many assholes with computers and free time these days.

[FarCenter]

2. The free flow of anonymously posted information is a bitch.

[sharp_stick]

6. Oh no it's not the free flow

of anonymously posted information that's a bitch. It's the free flow of idiocy in interpreting the anonymously posted information that is the bitch.

There are simply too many people that like to pretend that their basement dwelling lifestyle has allowed them to become expert on a subject that they in truth aren't even remotely qualified to understand.

This then muddies up any actual debate with moronic talking points regurgitated like a robins worm for the masses of "true believers" in the existence of a massive conspiracy between much smarter people with the sole goal of enriching themselves at the expense of the poor oil companies.

If you want to interpret the emails you must read them all and then now exactly where they came from and understand the meetings that led to them and all the rest. Anything less is simply out and out dishonesty.

Then again deniers are no strangers to out and out dishonesty it's the bread and butter of their craft.

[FarCenter]

8. Back in 2008, the 1% were salivating at the profits from carbon exchanges and credit trading

And the politicians were salivating at the votes they could get from the greens.

What the emails show is how highly politicized the issue had become and that at least some of the scientists involved were succumbing to political pressures to selectively publicize data and to shade conclusions presented without suitable caveats and cautions.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[FarCenter]

19. July 30, 2008 -- Largest Cleantech Industry is…Carbon Credits at $63 Billion

Emerging out of thin air, it has already surpassed solar and wind as the largest cleantech industry. Carbon credits were worth a staggering $63 billion in 2007 and $59 billion in the first half of 2008 alone.

Europe has dominating the carbon market since its creation less than five years ago. EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) was responsible for 70% of the trading in the first half of this year, totaling $47 billion. This dollar amount is likely to increase as the cost of carbon credits soars and with the inclusion of aviation emissions in 2012.

Obviously an industry of this amount of rapid growth opens many business opportunities. Companies are needed to provide verified emissions offsets, energy efficiency audits, greenhouse gas emission audits, and to design carbon software. This industry has gained considerable interest from venture capitalists.

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/30/largest-cleantech-industry-is%E2%80%A6carbon-credits-at-63-billion/

[BridgeTheGap]

3. "Having elevated global warming to the most dramatic, urgent and over-riding issue of the day"

Really? I don't see that at all. And, despite propaganda to the contrary, it probably is the issue of our time as it imperil's our very existence on this planet.

As Al Gore has so adroitly proved, anyone who sounds the alarm will have the full might of the petro/coal industries arrayed against them with spin machines working 24x7 to deny and discredit.
This has to be viewed in the context of how the 1% respond when challenged in any arena, whether it be financial/economic, military or environmental policies.

[FarCenter]

4. Global warming was more elevated back in 2009 and before, when these were written

Given the huge economic problems that the world is facing, global warming is on the back burner now.

[MichaelMcGuire]

11. Renewable's should be at the front

I see no reason why you couldn't re-industrialise the US which would employ a great number of people. I'm sure you have the skills in your workforce.

[FarCenter]

12. Current US consumption is about 100 quads per annum of energy

Renewables would help, but there is not enough capital available to replace a significant fraction of 100 quads/annum with renewables. The only renewable that is a reasonable percentage of the total is hydroelectric, and that is declining.

So the US needs a comprehensive energy policy that includes all sources.

Consumption of fossil fuels will decline, but it will take some time and GDP will probably decline along with it.

[MichaelMcGuire]

14. The science is improving fast and renewable's will increasely play a larger part.

The potential in renewable's given time will more than meet need. Still the US can play a part in this or be left behind.

Closer to home....

//The production of renewable energy in Scotland is an issue that has come to the fore in technical, economic, and political terms during the opening years of the 21st century.<1> The natural resource base for renewables is extraordinary by European, and even global standards. In addition to an existing installed capacity of 1.3 Gigawatts (GW) of hydro-electric schemes, Scotland has an estimated potential of 36.5 GW of wind and 7.5 GW of tidal power, 25% of the estimated total capacity for the European Union and up to 14 GW of wave power potential, 10% of EU capacity.<2><3> The renewable electricity generating capacity may be 60 GW or more, considerably greater than the existing capacity from all Scottish fuel sources of 10.3 GW.<2><4> Scotland is on track to exceed its renewable energy target, set in 2007, for 31% of total power generation coming from renewables by 2011, and the 2020 target for the renewable share of total electricity generation has been raised from 50% to 80%.<5>//

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

[FarCenter]

16. By way of comparison, US generating capacity for wind was 37..6 GWatts in 2010

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0811a

Total generating capacity was 1029 GWatts. Note that this is electrical only.

The most significant use of crude oil was for the production of transportation fuels; gasoline and diesel fuel. To substitute electricity for crude oil would require a substatial increase of electrical generation.

[BridgeTheGap]

17. The first step should be a major effort toward conservation. That could also provide economic

stimulation. Money you don't spend on energy (heat, fuel, etc.) you can spend elsewhere.

[Spazito]

5. The science exists....

and breathless 'exposes' of e-mails is not going to change that no matter how hard those who support the filth spewing corporations will try.

[gristy]

7. Yes. My thought exactly when I saw this post.

[redqueen]

10. +1

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[yardwork]

13. This is false propaganda. There is no question about global warming.

[XemaSab]

15. Want some arctic ice volume with that denial?

[pintobean]

20. Kick and Rec

You've hit a nerve. :rofl:

Deniers. :rofl:

[neverforget]

21. We get it. Scientists are wrong while the corporations are right.

Scientists are just in it for the money unlike corporations which are looking out for you and me.

:sarcasm: