nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Climategate?

This post has been deleted.

Find more posts tagged with

climategate

carbon tax

Quick Links

Comments

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

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.

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.

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 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!

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

jawlie wrote: »

I'm not sure what David Bellamy's scientific integrity has to do with these letters...

Not much really. A video of Dr. Bellamy was however put forward as part of an argument – what that argument was I’m not quite sure.

jawlie wrote: »

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.

I’m pretty sure I have offered my opinion, but I’ll repeat it. First and foremost, we have absolutely no way of knowing that all of these emails are genuine (some of them undoubtedly are). If they are, we have no way of knowing that they have not been tampered with or doctored in any way. Let us not forget that the presence of these emails on the internet is the result of a criminal act – that alone is sufficient for me to doubt their authenticity. After all, the criminals obviously had some sort of agenda.

Then of course there is the sheer volume of text – I simply don’t have the time to wade through it all. Given my scepticism about their authenticity, I don’t really have the motivation either. But I’m quite prepared to engage in a discussion on an exert if someone wishes to produce one. As I already stated, nothing I have read so far seems particularly incriminating to me.

jawlie wrote: »

...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?

My position would be no different if, for example, Greenpeace hacked a Shell server and produced emails alleging collusion between Shell and various governments around the world. It’s not the argument, it’s the nature of the evidence.

jawlie wrote: »

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.

I think I’ve adequately addressed my stance on the emails at this stage. But on the subject of questioning the integrity of those on the same ‘side’ (for want of a better expression) of the argument on climate change as myself, I will have absolutely no problem examining the arguments in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, for example, and producing a critique, if I had the time, of course (I went with Al Gore because he seems to be a popular target for the sceptics).

jawlie wrote: »

You seem happy to make up your mind on David Bellamy on tha basis of one letter to "Nature" magazine...

First of all, Nature is not a magazine, it’s a journal. Secondly, that letter is not the sole basis for my opinion of Dr. Bellamy.

jawlie wrote: »

...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.

Of course it’s evidence, I just don’t consider it terribly strong evidence (for the reasons outlined above). Anyway, which email are we talking about here?

djpbarry wrote: »

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.

I think this might be an example of the "Blind Faith" we were looking for earlier.

djpbarry wrote: »

The emails don’t prove anything. They may suggest that something untoward has taken place, but that’s about it.
A popular misconception – average CO2 emissions from volcanoes are tiny (about 100 times smaller per annum) compared to those from human activity.

Yep. More of that "blind faith"....just as your Climate Change loons have not proved anything is happening, just suggested it. Cannot have ones cake and eat it too, Sir. As for the Volcanoes, well they were erupting for millions of years before we made our way onto this planet, so how do we not know it is they which are driving climate change?

djpbarry wrote: »

... Let us not forget that the presence of these emails on the internet is the result of a criminal act – that alone is sufficient for me to doubt their authenticity. After all, the criminals obviously had some sort of agenda...Of course it’s evidence, I just don’t consider it terribly strong evidence (for the reasons outlined above). Anyway, which email are we talking about here?

Whether or not one agrees with the way the information got into the public arena, it seems silly to hold ones nose aloft and say one is not going to consider it due to the nature of how it was released.

The information is there and, while anyone is free to ignore it, others are free to look at it am make up their minds about it. Information is leaked all the time, from long before Watergate and since the leak about Tony Blair's WMD claims, and has often proved to be a valuable and necessary tool for uncovering the truth. Leaking is part of our culture, and while one might bemoan the fact, to ignore it seems unusual.

IT Loser wrote: »

I think this might be an example of the "Blind Faith" we were looking for earlier.

Is there something particularly damning in the emails that I have missed? Do feel free to draw my attention to it.

IT Loser wrote: »

More of that "blind faith"....just as your Climate Change loons have not proved anything is happening, just suggested it.

You're right - nothing has been proven, as it is impossible to prove anything. There is, however, a substantial amount of evidence that strongly suggests that climate change is taking place and that we are at least partly responsible. I don't ever recall any climatologist claim that they had proven that climate change was taking place.

IT Loser wrote: »

As for the Volcanoes, well they were erupting for millions of years before we made our way onto this planet, so how do we not know it is they which are driving climate change?

Plants have an affinity for a particular carbon isotope; carbon-12. Because fossil fuels derive from plants, they contain more carbon-12 than is present in the atmosphere. However, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere is declining, which strongly suggests that the increased concentration of CO2 is a result of our burning of fossil fuels. There's a paper on the subject here if you're interested.

ConsiderThis wrote: »

Whether or not one agrees with the way the information got into the public arena, it seems silly to hold ones nose aloft and say one is not going to consider it due to the nature of how it was released.

It seems silly to me to assume that information obtained by criminal means (and filtered through numerous blogs, it seems) is completely authentic.

djpbarry wrote: »

It seems silly to me to assume that information obtained by criminal means (and filtered through numerous blogs, it seems) is completely authentic.

I agree.

It might also be said to be silly to assume they are also inauthentic. Is your view that these emails are bogus and completely inauthentic?

Those emails and other documents that have been requested should now be released under the FOI act in the UK after all it's "scientific" information, not commercial in confidance!

Deleted User wrote: »

Those emails and other documents that have been requested should now be released under the FOI act in the UK after all it's "scientific" information, not commercial in confidance!

We've seen their attitude to releasing them, which is that they are not going to release them to independent review, and are going to break the law.

It's more interesting to wonder why they are so scared of releasing them if, as they say, the stats back up their claims.

The emails are dodgy - they seem to show scientists worried about questions that people are raising about their data, and it's very bad form that they (a) wouldn't just release the full data set and (b) would discuss a deletion of emails to avoid an FOI request relevant to AR4 queries.

Of course, banks and oil companies regularly delete emails and shred files, just so that people won't be able to leak them. That isn't a scandal, but an accepted business practise.

Scientists are supposed to be above all of that and these guys have really shot themselves in the foot.

But that shouldn't be used as an excuse to ignore all of the other changes that are happening in the world. The CO2 is way above what it has ever been in recorded history. The earth has a fever. That aspect isn't in dispute.

CO2 concentration has never gone above 280ppm in all the recorded cycles and now we are at 385ppm.

Lakes in Africa are drying up (Lake Chad for example, which was bigger than Israel). Research says that people have had to take more water from the rivers/lake because of droughts and climate change.

There is a 20 minute video on TED which shows time lapse photography of glaciers disappearing, retreating. It's stunning. (even though it takes about 10 mins to get going!)

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html Here's a screenshot, but watching it in motion will shock you.

Climate scientists are not living lives of luxury, generally. Even though they have a motivation (funding) to convince people of their 'side', the money at stake is far less than on the sceptic side. Last year, Exxon posted profits of $45,000,000,000. Profit, not revenue. That's equivalent to our entire national budget.

So on the anti-climate change side, there is a profit motivation in discrediting researchers and plenty of the lobby groups are funded by oil companies. (here's an example)

I would ask the people on this thread that are saying the scientists are corrupt - how do you explain the disappearance of the glaciers?