Climategate?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cnocbui

If the material proves to be true, and not altered or faked then it is a bit of a bombshell.

An unexpected angle which might end up biting hard is that apparently the CRU (Climate research Unit) was the subject of some FOI requests for raw climate data and the head of the CRU refused to hand over the data saying it had been lost. I believe one of the emails from the head of the CRU mentions that he would rather destroy the data than hand it over. Others discuss ways of not complying with the FOI requests. Oh dear, that might just be illegal.

lostinsuperfunk

I read the NYT article and the some of the hacked emails and there doesn't seem to be anything very indicative of any large scale fabrication or conspiracy there.
The most interesting things anyone can find so far are (1) an admission of using a 'trick', said trick being a fully acknowledged use of an instrumental time series on the same plot as a proxy (inferred) time series and (2) an admission from someone that they would prefer to destroy some data than hand it over in response to a particular freedom of information request. Note that they didn't say that they actually destroyed the data, although this fact appears to have been lost on some of the more "enthusiastic" members of the blogging community.
However, perhaps it is a telling admission, and I think it is always wrong to withhold data that taxpayers paid for. The FOI request was very likely to have been a mischievous one from someone with a copy of Excel and an axe to grind, but that still doesn't excuse it.

There is some other mildly amusing stuff, e.g. some disparaging remarks about Steve Levitt & co., Guess what, the CRU don't like him. Big deal.

djpbarry

Having read the NYT article, I can't see anything particularly damning. If any of the emails represented the 'bombshell' that some sceptics seek, I imagine the text would have been reproduced.

cnocbui

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

(2) an admission from someone that they would prefer to destroy some data than hand it over in response to a particular freedom of information request. Note that they didn't say that they actually destroyed the data, although this fact appears to have been lost on some of the more "enthusiastic" members of the blogging community.
However, perhaps it is a telling admission, and I think it is always wrong to withhold data that taxpayers paid for. The FOI request was very likely to have been a mischievous one from someone with a copy of Excel and an axe to grind, but that still doesn't excuse it.

They said they 'lost' the data when not responding to an FOI request. Combine that with an email where they are saying they would rather destroy it than hand it over and any pretense that the subsequent 'loss' was genuine or accidental begins to look highly dubious.

The FOI instigator was Steve McIntyre who runs the Climate Audit website. When Phil Jones says stuff like this:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

You really have to wonder what he has been up to with the data if he is so scared of someone independent getting their hands on it.

simplistic

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


It was pretty obvious that it was always a fraud. But the danger now is that it has become a religion. So fraud has been legalized.

Skeptic : your honour, climate change scientists are manipulating data and facts for personal gain.

Judge: How dare you that is blasphemy!

ConsiderThis

Having read parts of the emails, and, assuming they are genuine and not a hoax, at least it would seem to call in question the objectivity of these scientists, and appears they have an agenda which they will pursue to the extend that they will alter data, and suppress data, and tell lies.

What does that tell us about them?

Macha

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Having read parts of the emails, and, assuming they are genuine and not a hoax, at least it would seem to call in question the objectivity of these scientists, and appears they have an agenda which they will pursue to the extend that they will alter data, and suppress data, and tell lies.

So which exact parts concern you?

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Having read parts of the emails, and, assuming they are genuine and not a hoax, at least it would seem to call in question the objectivity of these scientists, and appears they have an agenda which they will pursue to the extend that they will alter data, and suppress data, and tell lies.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If data has been manipulated or falsified and subsequent publications were based on said data, then it wouldn’t take long for said publications to be discredited. Now, scientific papers are sometimes discredited, or at the very least, critiqued or advanced upon – it’s the nature of science. However, unless someone can demonstrate that a large number of publications on the subject of climate change have been based on erroneous data and that our understanding of the subject has, as a result, been severely compromised, then I’m going to keep this article firmly in the ‘sensationalist’ category.

I might also direct anyone who’s interested to the link in my signature – I find it genuinely disturbing that people will so readily accept something just because it appears in a newspaper*.


*Disclaimer: that’s a general comment, not based on the content of this thread nor directed at any poster on this thread.

ConsiderThis

taconnol wrote: »

So which exact parts concern you?

I think all those parts that appear to show the their agenda is less about a search for truth, and appears to be more concerned with withholding information, manipulating it to favour their case, and controlling the agenda.

What do you think the emails says about their agenda?

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If data has been manipulated or falsified and subsequent publications were based on said data, then it wouldn’t take long for said publications to be discredited.

I think the point is, in this case, that they won't release the data to anyone, so that no one will be in a position to discredit it.

djpbarry wrote: »

I find it genuinely disturbing that people will so readily accept something just because it appears in a newspaper

I'm sure there isn't another member of boards who disagrees with you, which is why I added the proviso "assuming they are genuine and not a hoax" in my last post.

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I think all those parts that appear to show the their agenda is less about a search for truth, and appears to be more concerned with withholding information, manipulating it to favour their case, and controlling the agenda.

But specifically, which emails (or parts of emails) are you referring to?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I think the point is, in this case, that they won't release the data to anyone, so that no one will be in a position to discredit it.

But what data are we referring to? Has someone been denied access to data under-pinning a particular publication? Or are we talking about unpublished results?

hiwayman

Consider this,
I think there trying to ware you down again :D

cnocbui

djpbarry wrote: »

But what data are we referring to? Has someone been denied access to data under-pinning a particular publication?

Er, yes.

This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 12 August 2009 | Nature 460, 787 (2009) | doi:10.1038/460787a
News
Climate data spat intensifies

Growing demands for access to information swamp scientist.
Olive Heffernan

A leading UK climatologist is being inundated by freedom-of-information-act requests to make raw climate data publicly available, leading to a renewed row over data access.
Since 2002, Steve McIntyre, the editor of Climate Audit, a blog that investigates the statistical methods used in climate science, has repeatedly asked Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, for access to monthly global surface temperature data held by the institute.

It is the basis for my comments speculating that possibly the most serious aspect of this affair will turn out to be questions concerning the illegal thwarting of valid FOI requests.

You have one of those emails where Phil Jones says he would rather destroy the data than hand it over - a statement which implies the data exists - contrasting with a later claim by him that the data has been 'lost' so can't be handed over.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

Enter the dog that ate global warming.


Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=

Another e-mail from Jones dated last year with the subject line “IPCC and FOI” is a request to Michael Mann, asking him to delete certain e-mails. Bloggers allege that Jones was trying to destroy data that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack

Macha

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I think all those parts that appear to show the their agenda is less about a search for truth, and appears to be more concerned with withholding information, manipulating it to favour their case, and controlling the agenda.

Yes and I'm asking you which parts are those?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

What do you think the emails says about their agenda?

I certainly don't read into them what you seem to. That's why I'm asking you which specific parts you have a problem with.

Bucklesman

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "If you looked through any organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

Most sensible response in my opinion. Chill the beans, folks.

hiwayman

I havent looked at much of this yet and it might already be here, but it seems to help search through the leaked e-mails.
It'll take quite a while for anyone interested enough to get through this stuff and perhaps to make an informed judgement.

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

The whole situation brings into focus the evidence that Governments are so keen to use as a reason for introducing "Carbon Taxation".

If proven it will blow the lid on one of the biggest con tricks ever devised by Western Governments on it's citizens since the "temporary" Income tax levied in the 18th century, or more recently the Iraqi "super-gun".

cnocbui

taconnol wrote: »

Yes and I'm asking you which parts are those?


I certainly don't read into them what you seem to. That's why I'm asking you which specific parts you have a problem with.

I don't know about Consider This, but I have reservations about what these seem to be saying:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations. [This is from Michael Mann of the Hockey Stick]
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. [From the same Phil as above, the director of CRU]
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean … It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip
I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.


You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.
And then there's this...

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

There is also the matter of apparent collusion to undermine the journal Climate Research and to force out an editor of that journal.

SLUSK

This is what happens when you have government controlled "research". Lysenkoism all over.

HollyEvans

I have been a long time believer in AGW. However over the last year or so I have been disgusted by the manipulation, lack of debate and smear campaigns used by various scientists.

This latest revelation has left me distraught and feeling that once again we may have been scammed.

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

Er, yes.

That link doesn’t refer to a particular publication.

cnocbui wrote: »

It is the basis for my comments speculating that possibly the most serious aspect of this affair will turn out to be questions concerning the illegal thwarting of valid FOI requests.

Who says the FOI requests are valid and the ‘thwarting’ of said requests is illegal?

cnocbui wrote: »

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=

Ok, so we have an allegation here that the instrumental temperature record has been falsified in some way. Should we just take Mr. Michaels’ word for it? After all, this is a guy who (as far as I am aware) still questions whether the phasing out of CFC’s was necessary to prevent the destruction of the ozone layer, so you’ll have to excuse my scepticism.

djpbarry

cnocbui wrote: »

I don't know about Consider This, but I have reservations about what these seem to be saying:

What do they seem to be saying (assuming that the emails are genuine)? Take the first piece of text that you have highlighted: "...to hide the decline". Hide what decline? What's that about?

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

This is what happens when you have government controlled "research".

Govenments rarely 'control' research. They might fund it, but that's a whole other matter.

djpbarry

HollyEvans wrote: »

I have been a long time believer in AGW. However over the last year or so I have been disgusted by the manipulation, lack of debate and smear campaigns used by various scientists.

Could you provide some examples?

HollyEvans

djpbarry wrote: »

Could you provide some examples?

Well for a start it is widely known and yet widely ignored that global temperatures have dropped since 1998.

We also have Al Gore hyping things out of all proportion and refusing to engage in any sort of open debate. It has also been suggested that he is to profit massively from carbon taxes.

Macha

HollyEvans wrote: »

Well for a start it is widely known and yet widely ignored that global temperatures have dropped since 1998.

That is not widely known but is probably widely ignored because it is incorrect.

The reality is that the ten warmest years in the period of instrumental measure have all occured in the past 12 years.

HollyEvans wrote: »

We also have Al Gore hyping things out of all proportion and refusing to engage in any sort of open debate. It has also been suggested that he is to profit massively from carbon taxes.

Suggested by who? Backed up with any proof?

djpbarry

HollyEvans wrote: »

Well for a start it is widely known and yet widely ignored that global temperatures have dropped since 1998.

As taconnol says, I’m not sure that’s an accurate assessment, but the global temperature record is hardly a secret.

HollyEvans wrote: »

We also have Al Gore hyping things out of all proportion and refusing to engage in any sort of open debate. It has also been suggested that he is to profit massively from carbon taxes.

Again, I don’t know if that’s accurate, but Al Gore is not a scientist.

HollyEvans

HollyEvans wrote: »

We also have Al Gore hyping things out of all proportion and refusing to engage in any sort of open debate. It has also been suggested that he is to profit massively from carbon taxes.

taconnol wrote: »

Suggested by who? Backed up with any proof?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/gore-makes-sustainable-investment-his-business/2005/11/13/1131816810708.html

As chairman of a British company, the former US vice-president still has global warming and long-term consequences on his mind, writes Peter Weekes.
AL GORE, the man who five years ago won the popular vote but lost the US presidential elections by a few hanging chads, has a stark warning for all investors.
"Capitalism is at a critical juncture," he says, arguing that the focus on short-term results is undermining issues such as the long-term sustainability of profits, how a company relates to the community and its employees, and the environment.
Australia's politicians might prefer to quietly retire after securing lucrative business consultancy deals, but Gore is out to make a noise as co-founder and chairman of British-based sustainable investing company Generation Investment.

Martinog

The emails + 3000 documents can be downloaded here.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
http://rapidshare.com/files/310861779/FOI2009.zip


Look for the pdf "rules of the Game" oh god it's funny.

All the emails can be searched by keyword on this site:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

Type in some funny keywords like fu*k, idiot,bbc,al gore

Climate Change Bombshell: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWmdUqJBcKE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRBWt24L7TA

djpbarry

David Bellamy was "in the woodwork"? I seem to recall him being a particularly prominent "sceptic". But anyway, why should we listen to him?

SLUSK

djpbarry wrote: »

Govenments rarely 'control' research. They might fund it, but that's a whole other matter.

Government funded research implicates government controlled research... grants get removed if they come to conclusions not supported by government.

djpbarry

SLUSK wrote: »

Government funded research implicates government controlled research... grants get removed if they come to conclusions not supported by government.

No, they don't. Now, you can either produce some evidence to support your position (which I know you can't), or you can take this to the Conspiracy Theories forum (where, I suspect, evidence will still be required). Your call.

ConsiderThis

If these documents are genuine, what they show is
• collusion between this group of scientists to manipulate data
• are peer reviewing each others literature
• these group of scientists controls the direction of the IPCC
• shows conspiracy to get James Sayers fired from the Editorial staff of the geophysical review letters, because he questions their conclusions
• talks of a conspiracy to break the law and not release FOI information
• We already know that these same scientists ignore the Middle age warm period, because it contradicts their claim that the 20th century is the warmest period in history.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it disturbing that the most influential group of scientists in the world, and who control the scientific input into the IPCC which governments listen to and which contributes to governments thinking on policy, should be lying about data and behaving like this.

How can anyone believe scientists who appear to think its ok to lie, manipulate their own statistics in an attempt to make their own case appear better, and break the law of the land?

ConsiderThis

ConsiderThis wrote: »

If these documents are genuine, what they show is
• collusion between this group of scientists to manipulate data
• are peer reviewing each others literature
• these group of scientists controls the direction of the IPCC
• shows conspiracy to get James Sayers fired from the Editorial staff of the geophysical review letters, because he questions their conclusions
• talks of a conspiracy to break the law and not release FOI information
• We already know that these same scientists ignore the Middle age warm period, because it contradicts their claim that the 20th century is the warmest period in history.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it disturbing that the most influential group of scientists in the world, and who control the scientific input into the IPCC which governments listen to and which contributes to governments thinking on policy, should be lying about data and behaving like this.

How can anyone believe scientists who appear to think its ok to lie, manipulate their own statistics in an attempt to make their own case appear better, and break the law of the land?

I think clarity on this issue is needed before the Copenhagen summit. IPCC reports and the people implicated in the alleged emails (some confirmed emails) have huge sway over our economics systems now!

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

If these documents are genuine, what they show is
• collusion between this group of scientists to manipulate data
• are peer reviewing each others literature
• these group of scientists controls the direction of the IPCC
• shows conspiracy to get James Sayers fired from the Editorial staff of the geophysical review letters, because he questions their conclusions
• talks of a conspiracy to break the law and not release FOI information
• We already know that these same scientists ignore the Middle age warm period, because it contradicts their claim that the 20th century is the warmest period in history.

That’s quite a list of accusations you’re making there. Care to substantiate them with something?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I don’t know about anyone else, but I find it disturbing that the most influential group of scientists in the world, and who control the scientific input into the IPCC which governments listen to and which contributes to governments thinking on policy, should be lying about data and behaving like this.

Has it been established that someone is lying?

djpbarry

I’m going to lay down a marker at this stage, because I can see this thread getting very unwieldy very quickly. If people want to discuss these emails and the implications of this ‘leak’, that’s fine. However, if a particular claim is made on the basis of an email (or emails), then a reference to the specific email in question (or section of that email) MUST be given. Otherwise it will be assumed that the point being made is general in nature (and possibly not supported by any evidence). I will also take this opportunity to remind people that this is not the place for conspiracy theories.

Please do not reply to this post in-thread.

ConsiderThis

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s quite a list of accusations you’re making there. Care to substantiate them with something?
Has it been established that someone is lying?

More questions and no discussion!

I prefaced my post with "If these documents are genuine". As I have read then, then that's what they appear to demonstrate.

Are you saying that these emails, if they are genuine, don't show that the authors are being untruthful or are conspiring to break the law by, for example, not releasing information under FOI?

I'd be interested to know if you have read the emails, and what your thoughts are on them, and what others thoughts are on them.

silverharp

Can I ask, are all the datasets and model assumtions openly available? if not does if differ to any similar area of research where peer review is important?

djpbarry

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Are you saying that these emails, if they are genuine, don't show that the authors are being untruthful or are conspiring to break the law by, for example, not releasing information under FOI?

Be more specific – which email (or emails) are you referring to?

ConsiderThis wrote: »

I'd be interested to know if you have read the emails...

I haven’t read all of them, no, but I doubt anyone posting on this thread has. Of the emails I have read, it’s difficult to form concrete conclusions, as I don’t know the context in which the mails were written. I haven’t come across anything particularly incriminating so far.

hiwayman

djpbarry wrote: »

David Bellamy was "in the woodwork"? I seem to recall him being a particularly prominent "sceptic". But anyway, why should we listen to him?

A scientist who is not a sceptic is not a true scientist. But anyway, why should we listen to you

Proper sciense is about evaluating all available information and using all known methods to do these evaluations (including data that goes against the expected outcome) not "cherry picking" to ensure that the outcome of the research confirms your preferred conclusion.

Something that these emails appear to prove was not happening!

jawlie

djpbarry wrote: »

Be more specific – which email (or emails) are you referring to?
I haven’t read all of them, no, but I doubt anyone posting on this thread has. Of the emails I have read, it’s difficult to form concrete conclusions, as I don’t know the context in which the mails were written. I haven’t come across anything particularly incriminating so far.

So when someone writes that he is not going give out information the law requires him to, and intends to disobey the law and hide behind excuses, you need to know the context before deciding if that person is breaking the law of the land?

I agree that its normally unwise to jump to conclusions, but at some point we have to either make a judgement, or at least show some concern at what it looks like. Your position appears to be that you are reluctant to want to believe what it appears what these emails are saying. Which is a perfectly valid position to take and, if so, then perhaps I am less credulous and more quizzical about the emails.

I'm a long term "sceptic" but have kept fairly quiet for the past 20 years or so... But am happy to see that descenting voices are finally being heard.

I've always believed that mankind is having a profound affect on "local" environments and weather, deforrestation etc but never believed that effects were great enough to impact on the global environment.

One major volcano or solar storm will have a greater affect than several months of human activity.

djpbarry

hiwayman wrote: »

A scientist who is not a sceptic is not a true scientist.

So Bellamy is a “true scientist” because his opinion happens to agree with yours? Personally, I’d question Bellamy’s “scientific integrity” based on the content of his now infamous letter to Nature in 2005 (in which he claimed, without supporting evidence, that “555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980”) and, the following statement, taken from an opinion piece written for The New Zealand Centre for Political Research:

The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century.

Anyone who comes out with a statement that is so obviously false is not deserving of the title “scientist”.

hiwayman wrote: »

But anyway, why should we listen to you

With regard to what exactly?

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Proper sciense is about evaluating all available information and using all known methods to do these evaluations (including data that goes against the expected outcome) not "cherry picking" to ensure that the outcome of the research confirms your preferred conclusion.

Something that these emails appear to prove was not happening!

The emails don’t prove anything. They may suggest that something untoward has taken place, but that’s about it.

Deleted User wrote: »

One major volcano or solar storm will have a greater affect than several months of human activity.

A popular misconception – average CO2 emissions from volcanoes are tiny (about 100 times smaller per annum) compared to those from human activity.

djpbarry

jawlie wrote: »

So when someone writes that he is not going give out information the law requires him to, and intends to disobey the law and hide behind excuses, you need to know the context before deciding if that person is breaking the law of the land?

Surely it should be established whether or not such a chain of events has actually taken place? If someone is in breach of the law, then obviously they should be held accountable. However, it’s going to take something more than an article in the NYT to convince me that the law has been broken.

jawlie wrote: »

Your position appears to be that you are reluctant to want to believe what it appears what these emails are saying.

Not really – I just don’t think this is the ‘smoking gun’ that some would like to believe.

jawlie

djpbarry wrote: »

So Bellamy is a “true scientist” because his opinion happens to agree with yours? Personally, I’d question Bellamy’s “scientific integrity” based on the content of his now infamous letter to Nature in 2005 (in which he claimed, without supporting evidence, that “555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980”) and, the following statement, taken from an opinion piece written for The New Zealand Centre for Political Research:

Anyone who comes out with a statement that is so obviously false is not deserving of the title “scientist”.
With regard to what exactly?

I'm not sure what David Bellamy's scientific integrity has to do with these letters, and it seems irrelevant to me.

It is interesting, tho, that you seem prepared to offer an opinion about his one letter to "nature magazine" but seem unprepared to offer any opinion about the emails which are the subject of this thread.

While you ask the question "Bellamy is a “true scientist” because his opinion happens to agree with yours?", could a similar question be asked of yourself? namely, Could you be avoiding examining the emails to closely and making any sort of judgement because you happen to agree with the authors' conclusions on climate change?

I agree with you that we should question Bellamy's integrity. In fact, I think we should question everyone's integrity. Where we might be said to differ is that you appear to be not willing to question the integrity of the authors of the emails, but seem happy to question the integrity of the author of a letter with which you disagree.

djpbarry wrote: »

Surely it should be established whether or not such a chain of events has actually taken place? If someone is in breach of the law, then obviously they should be held accountable. However, it’s going to take something more than an article in the NYT to convince me that the law has been broken.

This forum is not about the law holding anyone accountable, its about looking at the available evidence and making up your own mind. You seem happy to make up your mind on David Bellamy on tha basis of one letter to "Nature" magasine, but seem reluctant to consider it evidence when someone says , in an email, for example, that they will not comply with the law re FOI.

I hope I have the courage to question the integrity of those with whom I both agree and disagree. Do you have such hopes for yourself?

As a matter of interest, can you say that, to date, you have tended to agree with the conclusions of these group of scientists and, if so, might that be why you are reluctant to examine their emails too closely?

hiwayman

djpbarry wrote: »

So Bellamy is a “true scientist” because his opinion happens to agree with yours? Personally, I’d question Bellamy’s “scientific integrity” based on the content of his now infamous letter to Nature in 2005 (in which he claimed, without supporting evidence, that “555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980”) and, the following statement, taken from an opinion piece written for The New Zealand Centre for Political Research:

Well I don't know about those particular articles, but thats not the point.
I was'nt talking about Bellamy in particular, I was referring scientists needing to be sceptics!

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

A popular misconception – average CO2 emissions from volcanoes are tiny (about 100 times smaller per annum) compared to those from human activity.

It's the obsession with CO2 that worries me the most, of all the gasses in the atmosphere why pick on CO2 and blame it on all the ills of mankind, after all plants thrive on CO2.

Yes, the rise in CO2 can be squarely put on the activities of mankind burning fuel etc, but it can equally be caused the deforrestation that reduces the planet's ability to absorb carbon convert it to oxygen.