Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Climategate?

24567…16

Comments

  • #52
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    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?


  • #53
    IT Loser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭IT Loser


    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.


  • #54
    IT Loser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭IT Loser


    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?


  • #55
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    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.


  • #56
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    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.


  • #57
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    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.


  • #58
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    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?


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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!


  • #60
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    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.
    Earthishavingafever.jpg
    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.
    AlaskanGlacialRetreat.jpg


    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?


  • #62
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    edanto wrote: »
    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.?

    What have banks and oil companies got to do with this, I don't get the connection.
    edanto wrote: »
    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.?

    Recorded history being the key term, at most the last 150 years. And who would trust any data from the IPCC on the back of these revelations?
    edanto wrote: »
    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!)?

    True, and if they had filmed in winter the glacier would be shown to expand, equally stunning. Do you think people are that easily duped?
    edanto wrote: »
    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.?

    Again what is with the comparisons? We all use oil as a vital energy source. As for lives of luxury, I'm sure is beats stacking at Tesco's.
    edanto wrote: »
    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)?

    Oil companies fund anti-climate lobby? Have you seen the adverts run by companies lately? An economic insight, scarcity drives up prices and therefore profits.
    edanto wrote: »
    I would ask the people on this thread that are saying the scientists are corrupt - how do you explain the disappearance of the glaciers?

    What glaciers are you talking about? Or by "the glaciers" are we supposed to know what you are on about?


    This fraud has been fully exposed.


  • #63
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    edanto wrote: »
    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.
    Earthishavingafever.jpg
    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.
    AlaskanGlacialRetreat.jpg


    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?

    No one disputes that the climate is changing. It was ever thus, although what is being claimed is that this time its different. The earth has been warmer than it is today and we are told the Vikings lived in a comparatively warm period.

    The unfortunate consequence of these emails is that the veracity what these scientists have been saying is now shrouded in doubt, created by theses emails which appear to show that they are trying to fit the facts to suit their case, rather than developing their case based on the facts.

    It may even be they are right, but their behaviour and antics now appear to call their veracity into question, assuming the emails are not a hoax.


  • #64
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    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.

    They have admitted to a leak and have yet to state that anything released was a forgery.

    If these emails and documents were faked I can assure you that a press release would have been issued to that effect.


  • #65
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


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

    Selected quotes;

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657

    djpbarry wrote: »
    I don't ever recall any climatologist claim that they had proven that climate change was taking place..

    I'm guessing that the word "climatologist" is the key to that statement. Give us your definition of a climatologist. I do recall various statements to the following effect "THE DEBATE IS OVER".


  • #66
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    djpbarry wrote: »
    which email are we talking about here?

    Post 19 in this thread has details from emails suggesting deleting stuff to foil FOI requests.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    HollyEvans wrote: »
    True, and if they had filmed in winter the glacier would be shown to expand, equally stunning. Do you think people are that easily duped?

    No, but I'm pretty sure that some people aren't going to bother (a) looking at the picture I posted or (b) watching the video before posting something like the above.

    The glacier was filmed over a period of years, not just one season. I'm amazed that you managed to not pick that up from the picture I posted. (I hope that explains why I'm not going to address the rest of your questions)


  • #68
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    The unfortunate consequence of these emails is that the veracity what these scientists have been saying is now shrouded in doubt, created by theses emails which appear to show that they are trying to fit the facts to suit their case, rather than developing their case based on the facts.

    Indeed, it does appear to show that, on the surface at least. Their credibility has been damaged. But they are only one groups of scientists - publishing a few papers on tree ring studies - amid a tsunami of other research which is sounding a big climate warning bell.


  • #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Edanto you know Lake Chad is drying up because the water flowing into the lake is being diverted to irrigation?

    CO2 ppms in the atmosphere varies from place to place!! The current 387ppm is recorded in Mauna Lau, Hawaii. We have had glaciation with CO2 levels in their thousands.


  • #70
    ConsiderThis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭ConsiderThis


    edanto wrote: »
    Indeed, it does appear to show that, on the surface at least. Their credibility has been damaged. But they are only one groups of scientists - publishing a few papers on tree ring studies - amid a tsunami of other research which is sounding a big climate warning bell.

    My understanding is that they are the most influential group on the IPCC.


  • #71
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    My understanding is that they are the most influential group on the IPCC.
    Where did you get that from?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    ConsiderThis wrote: »
    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?
    No, that is not my view – I am not claiming that they are completely bogus or inauthentic, but I have my doubts that every blogger who got hold of these has resisted the temptation to make alterations before posting them online.


  • #73
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    HollyEvans wrote: »
    And who would trust any data from the IPCC on the back of these revelations?
    So everything the IPCC has published is invalidated by a few emails?
    HollyEvans wrote: »
    What glaciers are you talking about? Or by "the glaciers" are we supposed to know what you are on about?
    From Fluctuations of Glaciers, 2000-2005, (Vol. IX) from the World Glacier Monitoring Service:
    Strong acceleration of glacier melting characterized the first five-year period of the 21st century.
    ...
    The past quarter of a century 1980–2005 shows a striking trend of increasingly negative balances with average annual ice thickness losses of decimeters and nearing the meter scale.
    HollyEvans wrote: »
    If these emails and documents were faked I can assure you that a press release would have been issued to that effect.
    I never suggested that the entire incident was a hoax. However...
    "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the spokesman stated.
    "Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
    HollyEvans wrote: »
    Selected quotes;

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
    Can you be a bit more specific? I don’t have the time to read a whole blog.
    HollyEvans wrote: »
    I'm guessing that the word "climatologist" is the key to that statement. Give us your definition of a climatologist.
    Someone who is actively involved in climatology research?


  • #74
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Edanto you know Lake Chad is drying up because the water flowing into the lake is being diverted to irrigation?

    Which scientists say is because there is less rainfall because of Climate Change.
    CO2 ppms in the atmosphere varies from place to place!! The current 387ppm is recorded in Mauna Lau, Hawaii. We have had glaciation with CO2 levels in their thousands.

    In summary, this is because CO2 is not the only driver of climate change. A decent explanation can be found on this page
    John Cook on that page wrote:
    So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account the fact that the sun was 4% less active than now. What about times closer to home? The most recent period when CO2 levels were as high as today was around 15 million years ago, during the Middle Miocene. CO2 levels were at about 400 ppm. What was the climate like at the time? Global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today. Sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher. There was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland. The close coupling between CO2 and climate led the author to conclude that "geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history." (Tripati 2009).

    Anyways, probably best not to stay off topic for too long, I just wanted to add context to this thread by saying that damage to the reputation of some scientists need not cast doubt on the entire principle of anthropogenic global warming.


  • #75
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I for one believe climate change is happening. Do I believe some of the claims of how much and the why? No. Water vapour worries me more than CO2 for example. Do I think its that much of a bad thing or could be made a good thing? No and yes respectively. Ok that sets out my stall.

    As for this leaked scandal and the science behind it. It's quite common today and has been in the past when it comes to sceintific consensus. When such consensus is reached the tendency is for most scientists to err on the side of that consensus and for some, a smaller number of outliers to go tinfoil hat the other way. Typical of any social(in the looser sense) group.

    Add in the public, most of which dont get most of the data or understand it's implications and you have the climate change "debate". Other disciplines have similar issues. Try getting a physics paper published that disputes string theory and that's wholly unproven. Try getting a paleoarchaeology paper published that questions humans in the americas before the clovis culture, even when such evidence is very strong. It's not easy.

    While science unlike faith and all that stuff is open to change when new data comes along, that change can face resistance from the consensus. The anti science lobby especially in the US has made more science types wary of too many questions or debate. Lines have been drawn more than ever I feel. Which doesnt help science and sure as hell doesnt help fix or prepare for climate change wherevere it brings us.

    Looking at what has been leaked that's pretty much what I see. The basic data is sound and both sides are arguing over the details. Just from different angles.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #76
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    edanto wrote: »
    Which scientists say is because there is less rainfall because of Climate Change.
    Or a growing population over exploiting the resource, both soil and water and that gives you less rainfall locally. That's happened more than once in history. The Egyptians fell fould of it. As did the Greeks.


    In summary, this is because CO2 is not the only driver of climate change. A decent explanation can be found on this page
    +1 I would look at the glass half full and utilise the greater CO to increase crop yeilds then again we're back to too many people.


    Anyways, probably best not to stay off topic for too long, I just wanted to add context to this thread by saying that damage to the reputation of some scientists need not cast doubt on the entire principle of anthropogenic global warming.
    +1000

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    edanto wrote: »
    Which scientists say is because there is less rainfall because of Climate Change.
    Which scientists?

    IPCC.jpg

    Overall there will be more rain. More heat more evaporation, more clouds more rain its basic stuff.


  • #78
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Which scientists?

    Overall there will be more rain. More heat more evaporation, more clouds more rain its basic stuff.

    Leaving aside the imposibility of their models being within cooeee of being accurate... 5-10% more rain over Ireland than in 1990. So that would make it dryer than the last couple of years then. Bring it on!

    The mediaeval warm period was warmer than today. Europe flourished during these times - life was good, agriculture boomed. The evidence does not seem to support the notion of increased rainfall, quite the reverse. As I said, bring it on

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html


  • #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Leaving aside the imposibility of their models being within cooeee of being accurate... 5-10% more rain over Ireland than in 1990. So that would make it dryer than the last couple of years then. Bring it on!

    The mediaeval warm period was warmer than today. Europe flourished during these times - life was good, agriculture boomed. The evidence does not seem to support the notion of increased rainfall, quite the reverse. As I said, bring it on

    http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html

    Previous warmer periods also saw a green sahara. Higher CO2 gives higher crop yields. Why all the end of the world stuff I dont know.


  • #80
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    The irony of many sceptics is how willing their are to believe selectively.

    Interesting reading:

    Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.
    Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

    CRU statement, including a detailed response to the allegations including:
    One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.

    Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”

    The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.

    https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate


  • #81
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cnocbui wrote: »
    The mediaeval warm period was warmer than today. Europe flourished during these times - life was good, agriculture boomed.
    And this is based on what exactly?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Previous warmer periods also saw a green sahara. Higher CO2 gives higher crop yields.
    What concentration of atmospheric CO2 is required before the Sahara will ‘green’ again?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    taconnol wrote: »
    The irony of many sceptics is how willing their are to believe selectively.

    Interesting reading:

    Statement from Professor Phil Jones, Head of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.
    CRU statement, including a detailed response to the allegations including:

    https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

    Irony is right.

    Those emails touched upon another subject, the altering of the temperature record in order to conceal the true magnitude of the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP)

    From one of those emails:

    From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
    To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
    Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
    Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
    Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>


    ...

    I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K,
    rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the
    memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet
    have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
    The famous Mann hockey stick deflated the MWP so that it looked as if current temperatures were historically unprecedented, to the point there were claims that 20th century temperatures were the highest for a million years.

    There is another source that corroborates what is being suggested in that email - just in case anyone wants to claim it is taken out of context:
    Dr. David Deming (University of Oklahoma, College of Earth and Energy) said in his testimony to congress URL]http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543[/URL “I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
    The extent of Mann's fiddling of the temperature record?

    2008-12-27_figure-4.jpg?w=425&h=319

    http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2008/12/27/documenting-the-global-warming-fraud-%E2%80%9Cgetting-rid%E2%80%9D-of-the-medieval-warming-period/


    The revisionist view of the temperature record just does not stand up to scrutiny.
    A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.
    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html

    Those emails reveal a concerted effort by climatologists to peddle a pre-determined view by perverting the way science is supposed to be done - from fiddling the figures, to peer reviewing each others papers, to trying to get rid of inconvenient editors at scientific publications to political activism.

    Just ask George Monbiot.
    It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
    - George Monbiot on his personal blog

    Oh yes, the irony!


  • #83
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Climategate - The Video

    Classic! :D

    How someone came up with this so fast.. impressive.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk


  • #84
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    Wibbs wrote: »

    Looking at what has been leaked that's pretty much what I see. The basic data is sound and both sides are arguing over the details. Just from different angles.

    What I see is outright fraud.


  • #85
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Those emails touched upon another subject, the altering of the temperature record in order to conceal the true magnitude of the Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP)

    From one of those emails:
    Your quote from the emails proves precisely nothing. And you have yet to answer the point that the data upon which we base AGW comes from multiple sources, not just this one. Have you data that shows that ALL sources of this data are corrupt? So far, you have not.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    The famous Mann hockey stick deflated the MWP so that it looked as if current temperatures were historically unprecedented, to the point there were claims that 20th century temperatures were the highest for a million years.

    There is another source that corroborates what is being suggested in that email - just in case anyone wants to claim it is taken out of context:

    The extent of Mann's fiddling of the temperature record?
    More irony: wailing about the lack of credibility of sources while referencing obscure blogs to support your own claims.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    The revisionist view of the temperature record just does not stand up to scrutiny.

    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html
    You entirely miss the point that the main concern with global warming in this century is the rate at which it is proceeding. I don't think anyone is claiming that the 20th century or 21st are the warmest ever on record, nor do I think that claim is central to the science behind AGW.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Those emails reveal a concerted effort by climatologists to peddle a pre-determined view by perverting the way science is supposed to be done - from fiddling the figures, to peer reviewing each others papers, to trying to get rid of inconvenient editors at scientific publications to political activism.!
    You certainly have failed to prove that in your post. But full marks for effort.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Just ask George Monbiot.
    Yes, he is disappointed in their behaviour. Does that automatically lead us to a dismissal of the scientific theory of AGW? No.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Oh yes, the irony!
    Indeed, the irony of claiming to be bastions of scientific scepticism while repeatedly demonstrating a blind willingness to jump on any modicum of proof that may or may not support a pre-determined belief.


  • #86
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cnocbui wrote: »
    From one of those emails:
    I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
    Maybe you could explain to the audience exactly what is being said there? Because it seems to me you’re seeing what you want to see.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    The famous Mann hockey stick deflated the MWP so that it looked as if current temperatures were historically unprecedented, to the point there were claims that 20th century temperatures were the highest for a million years.
    Several other studies have confirmed the key conclusion of Mann et al., i.e. the world is warmer today than at any point over the last thousand years. But it’s something of a moot point; the conclusion that we are currently making the world warmer does not depend on reconstructions of temperature prior to direct records.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    The revisionist view of the temperature record just does not stand up to scrutiny.
    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html
    You’re being rather selective in what science you choose to believe and what you dismiss, aren’t you?


  • #87
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    HollyEvans wrote: »
    What I see is outright fraud.
    It seems I need to remind people of what I said here. If you're going to make a claim, support it with specific evidence. Posts such as the above contribute nothing to the discussion.


  • #88
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    You would think we were in a court of law.

    We all have the ability of read simple email exchanges, the emails are fairly simple to understand. For example when someone says they "would rather delete the data than fulfill a FOI request", I think that means they "would rather delete the data than fulfill a FOI request". Maybe I am naive????


  • #89
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    taconnol wrote: »

    You entirely miss the point that the main concern with global warming in this century is the rate at which it is proceeding. I don't think anyone is claiming that the 20th century or 21st are the warmest ever on record, nor do I think that claim is central to the science behind AGW.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Several other studies have confirmed the key conclusion of Mann et al., i.e. the world is warmer today than at any point over the last thousand years. But it’s something of a moot point; the conclusion that we are currently making the world warmer does not depend on reconstructions of temperature prior to direct records.


    both from the same side of the fence and completely different views..... somebodies logic is flawed here :)


  • #90
    HollyEvans
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭HollyEvans


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It seems I need to remind people of what I said here. If you're going to make a claim, support it with specific evidence. Posts such as the above contribute nothing to the discussion.

    Missed your warning, OK here is the evidence;

    Selected quotes from the emails;

    "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."

    "I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that."

    "I gather you're going to collect the free lunch(?) with Esso ! "

    "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that."

    "Anyway, 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"

    And the big bomb;

    "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same."


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And this is based on what exactly?
    What concentration of atmospheric CO2 is required before the Sahara will ‘green’ again?

    CO2 levels needed would be enough to bring temperatures up to levels equal to any of the 3 times in the past 120,000 years when the Sahara was green.
    http://www.afrol.com/articles/31217


  • #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What concentration of atmospheric CO2 is required before the Sahara will ‘green’ again?

    This is one area where I worry about "climate change" advocates being CO2 obsessed.

    Changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere alone won't green the desert, it may or may not have a direct or indirect effect in changing the climate sufficiently to green the desert on it's own.

    The sun has been and always will be the prime driver of climate on this planet and there is plenty of evidence that the recent sunspot cycles have been exceptionaly high, cycle 24 peaked about six years ago, co-inciding with some claims of global warming advocates of one of the warmest years on record.

    Since 2004 the sunspot cycle has been winding down (so have world temperatures), some predictions for the next sunspot cycle state that it willl be a "quiet" one.

    If so, the next couple of decades will be "cooler".

    Solar activity is conspicuous by it's absance from all the headline AGW reports.


  • #93
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    both from the same side of the fence and completely different views..... somebodies logic is flawed here :)
    I'm afraid it is your logic that is flawed. I said that scientists are not claiming that the 20th century was the hottest ever.


  • #94
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    robtri wrote: »
    both from the same side of the fence and completely different views.....
    I wouldn’t say they’re completely different – we’re both saying more or less the same thing. Why should our views be exactly the same?
    HollyEvans wrote: »
    Selected quotes from the emails...
    Ok, so you’ve gone and “selected” quotes from a few emails, which means that we really have no idea what the context is, do we? Some of them might look suspicious when taken at face value, but we don’t really know what they’re talking about, do we? It’s just guesswork. Can you honestly say that you know what’s being said here for example:

    "I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that."
    Deleted User wrote: »
    CO2 levels needed would be enough to bring temperatures up to levels equal to any of the 3 times in the past 120,000 years when the Sahara was green.
    Nothing else is required? We up the atmospheric CO2 concentration and, hey presto, the Sahara blooms?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere alone won't green the desert...
    Precisely my point. The claim has been made on a number of occasions on this forum that upping CO2 concentration will benefit plant life. Now, it might, but that would depend on all other nutrients being present in excess. In the absence of water, for example, you can up the CO2 concentration all you want, but ain’t nothin’ gonna grow.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The sun has been and always will be the prime driver of climate on this planet and there is plenty of evidence that the recent sunspot cycles have been exceptionaly high, cycle 24 peaked about six years ago, co-inciding with some claims of global warming advocates of one of the warmest years on record.
    Nobody is denying that the sun obviously plays a major role in our climate, but there is no evidence that suggest that variations in solar output are responsible for the observed warming over the last few decades.


  • #95
    robtri
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    taconnol wrote: »
    I'm afraid it is your logic that is flawed. I said that scientists are not claiming that the 20th century was the hottest ever.

    Thats what you said YES..... but DJpBarry said hottest for 1000 years....
    yet both of you are on the same side of the AGW fence.... both answers cannot be right :)


  • #96
    cnocbui
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And this is based on what exactly?

    History.

    From this site: http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html

    10th – 14th century: The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum

    During the High Middle Ages in Europe experienced a climate slightly warmer than today. The summer temperatures were between 1 and 1.4 degrees higher than the average temperature of the 20th century. The winters were even warmer with an average temperature in England of 6 degrees, which is about 1 to 2 degrees warmer than today. The warmer conditions were caused by the fact that the air circulation above the Atlantic changed position, as did the warm sea currents, transporting warmer water to the arctic.

    In Europe the warm conditions had positive effects. Summer after summer the harvests were good and the population increased rapidly. As a result thousands of hectares were cleared of woodland and farmers expanded their fields high into the hills and on mountain slopes. It was even possible to grow successfully grapes as far north as Yorkshire.

    Under these conditions, art, literature and even science were developing apace and we see the height of medieval civilisation. The most visible achievements of this period are undoubtedly the construction of the many cathedrals all over Europe. The good harvests had made Europe rich and the good weather freed people from the burden of the struggle against the elements. It created the wealth and labour force to build cathedrals. It was a golden period for European Architecture and art.

    9th & 10th centuries: Vikings reach Island and Greenland during the milder condition that prevailed during Medieval Warm Period.

    Norse settlers arrived in Iceland in the 9th and Greenland in the 10th century with an agricultural practice based on milk, meat and fibre from cattle, sheep, and goats. The settlers were attracted by green fields and a relatively good climate and driven there by population pressures in Scandinavia.

    They were able to sail to Iceland and Greenland as well as Labrador because of a decrease in sea ice in the north Atlantic.
    And also from this source:

    http://books.google.ie/books?id=pBu8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=mediaeval+weather+crops+cathedrals&source=bl&ots=oIAI9fllM2&sig=umbxSIV-A0R_J_2UGrqUdDjfZ84&hl=en&ei=Q_kMS-CZJoGi4QalwrWcBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false
    An illustrated history of late medieval England - By Chris Given-Wilson
    , in particular, a chapter by Mark Bailey - The English Landscape
    The Thirteenth century marked the latter stages of the medieval 'warm epoch' in north-western-Europe, when average summer temperatures were perhaps one degree centigrade warmer than today. Warmer and drier summers encouraged the spread of vineyards in southern England and enabled farmers to cultivate grain at higher altitudes: there is evidence of thirteenth century cultivation at 1,300 feet above sea level on Dartmoor and at 1,000 feet in the Northumberland hills. However, there is growing evidence of climate change towards the end of the century, as summer rainfall rose consistently on the western hills...

    The growing instability of weather patterns in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries is apparent in the contrast between, on the one hand, the series of bumper harvests in the 1330s and, on the other hand, the terrible crop failures and cattle murrains of 1315-22. Such striking variability in the weather is is a likely indicator of a changing climate, and by the fifteenth century summers appear to to have become consistently wetter and colder. Mean summer temperature was perhaps a degree centigrade lower than in the thirteenth century, and presaged the onset of the little ice age...
    I don't know about you, but to me, this last bit could be describing the weather we have been experiencing in the British Isles these last few years.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    robtri wrote: »
    Thats what you said YES..... but DJpBarry said hottest for 1000 years....
    yet both of you are on the same side of the AGW fence.... both answers cannot be right :)
    Oh dear. Do you think that the last 1000 years equals ever?


  • #98
    Mark200
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    All I'm going to say is, I doubt the world of scientists have been depending on the University of East Anglia for all their global warming research.


  • #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Nothing else is required? We up the atmospheric CO2 concentration and, hey presto, the Sahara blooms?

    Well going on the IPCC pic I posted earlier rainfall will increase in this part of the world. CO2 also fertilises vegetation.


  • #100
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    cnocbui wrote: »
    History.
    And how accurate is this “history”?


  • #101
    djpbarry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well going on the IPCC pic I posted earlier rainfall will increase in this part of the world. CO2 also fertilises vegetation.
    I think you know what my point is - an increase in CO2 concentration will only benefit plant growth if all other nutrients are present in the requisite amounts.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement