Climategate

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

Thank you for quoting an editorial written by an author who is clearly biased, and scientifically illiterate.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by stolz25

It doesn't have to increase the revenue of businesses on the whole. It just has to favor certain ones. For instance, Boone Pickens (who made his fortune in oil) was running a campaign trying to get legislation passed in Texas to help get his windmill farms running there. He was hoping for both grants and favorable legislation to help him gather up more land from what I understand.

The government can't really promote business, since they are just re-directing resources from the places they would normally go. Any legislation will either do nothing or end up hurting business on the whole.

Finally, an answer.

So you do believe that CEO's of over 100 businesses with over 4 trillion dollars in annual revenues, that employ 10 million people, comprise over a quarter of the total value of the US stock market and spend billions of dollars each year on research and development are endorsing flawed climate science regarding anthropogenic climate change that could very well lead to legislation that could hurt business as a whole.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Thank you for quoting an editorial written by an author who is clearly biased, and scientifically illiterate.

Hey, it's easier than having to answer questions and back up claims!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Thank you for quoting an editorial written by an author who is clearly biased, and scientifically illiterate.

It is not meant to be a scientific article. And even if I had posted a scientific article it would have been dismissed if it wasn't a study that was biased in the other direction from someone like Mann. The purpose of posting that article was to show some of the effects this is having within our media. They go into detail of what the problems of the hack was and then they discuss the effects within the media and even within the scientific community.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

So you do believe that CEO's of over 100 businesses with over 4 trillion dollars in annual revenues, that employ 10 million people, comprise over a quarter of the total value of the US stock market and spend billions of dollars each year on research and development are endorsing flawed climate science regarding anthropogenic climate change that could very well lead to legislation that could hurt business as a whole.

How in the world would I know? I really wasn't paying much attention at all to your conversation until you two started making claims about the "free" market. The bias or un-bias of climate research data isn't very high up there on my list of concerns.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by stolz25

How in the world would I know? I really wasn't paying much attention at all to your conversation until you two started making claims about the "free" market. The bias or un-bias of climate research data isn't very high up there on my list of concerns.

Fair enough!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Thank you for quoting an editorial written by an author who is clearly biased, and scientifically illiterate.

Here's a response to the situation by an IPCC scientist whose e-mails were leaked with this hack:

Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
Eduardo Zorita, November 2009
Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitely Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it destills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a layer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the 'hockey stick graph' or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

He is obviously a believer in anthropogenic climate change, but he is willing to call the issue out for what it is. The information is out there clear as day with this hack. Anyone reading this information can see that there was a lot of unethical behavior going on and the people involved should lose their credibility. If this were any other area of science they would have already lost their jobs/funding..

I believe in anthropogenic global warming. I believe the climate of this planet is on a warming cycle. I also believe we should act to prevent pollutants and attempt to manage our impact on this planet. What I take issue with is the alarmism and collusion. I do not believe we need to destroy our economy to save the planet. I do not believe the science exists to blame humans for all the problems that have been blamed.

Coming from that point of view, I find it ironic and quite frankly hilarious that people would respond to this scandal with defenses of Mann/Jones/et al. Their behavior was clearly unethical and the fact that people are calling out the people crying foul over the release of this information is abhorrent to the scientific debate. The standards of science is completely thrown out the window to defend these politically partisan hacks with no desire to promote sound science, yet the "skeptics" are repeatedly attacked for the quality of their science.

[thatguyoverthere]

Come on, JaJae, I love you, you're my main man. Let's let bygones be bygones and try to have a constructive dialogue.

You seem to grow very offended that anyone would not accept what you say at face value.

Originally Posted by JaJae

And I know you like to spam other blogs with that list as well. And I know you've been called out for trolling for doing so.

Please, show me where on this forum have I been called out as a troll for "spamming" my list.

Originally Posted by JaJae

And quite frankly the fact that you consider Exxon to be a defender of your climate change political views while blaming them for funding the skeptics is downright one of the funniest things I've read on this forum in a long time.

Since you assume that you know what my "climate change political views" are, then please tell me what climate change legislation I support.

This is the second time I've asked you those questions. If I may remind you, you are the one who started this conversation with me, not the other way around. You made those assertions of your own free will. I'm puzzled at why you think you can repeatedly make assertions without apparently having the ability to back them up, but maybe you can explain that to me and help me understand.

Thanks,
thatguyoverthere

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I do not believe we need to destroy our economy to save the planet.

What makes you think that saving the planet would destroy the economy?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Come on, JaJae, I love you, you're my main man. Let's let bygones be bygones and try to have a constructive dialogue.

Don't patronize me.

You seem to grow very offended that anyone would not accept what you say at face value.



Please, show me where on this forum have I been called out as a troll for "spamming" my list.



Since you assume that you know what my "climate change political views" are, then please tell me what climate change legislation I support.

This is the second time I've asked you those questions. If I may remind you, you are the one who started this conversation with me, not the other way around. You made those assertions of your own free will. I'm puzzled at why you think you can repeatedly make assertions without apparently having the ability to back them up, but maybe you can explain that to me and help me understand.

Thanks,
thatguyoverthere

Quite honestly it has been proven over and over again on this forum that we cannot have a constructive debate on climate change. Secondly, I don't have the time/desire to invest in such a debate, especially with someone who uses press releases from Exxon to defend their political views on the issue.

You're free to respond to whatever posts of mine you choose to respond to. In return I will do the same.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Don't patronize me.

I'm not trying to patronize you. I'm trying to bury the hatchet, extend the hand of friendship, offer the peace pipe, and see if there is in some tiny way possible to re-open the doors of communication between us. Yet, you still remain hostile. That's a shame, and I regret that you feel it has to be that way. I respect your intellect and am curious about what you have to say. I want to learn more about your thought process. If I wasn't, I would just leave you on ignore.

Either way, I hope that someday the water will go under the bridge and we can have a beer and be friends, but until then I will respect your right to refuse my offers of reconciliation.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Quite honestly it has been proven over and over again on this forum that we cannot have a constructive debate on climate change. Secondly, I don't have the time/desire to invest in such a debate, especially with someone who uses press releases from Exxon to defend their political views on the issue.

You're free to respond to whatever posts of mine you choose to respond to. In return I will do the same.

I'll take that as an admission from you that I have not been called out on this forum for trolling because I "spammed" my list, and that you do not know anything about my "climate change political views", and that you made those assertions without having a shred of evidence to back it up.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Secondly, I don't have the time/desire to invest in such a debate, especially with someone who uses press releases from Exxon to defend their political views on the issue.

There you go again!

If you know my political views on the issue, it should be very easy for you to tell me what climate change legislation I support.

What climate change legislation do I support? What are my political views on this subject? Please, cite your evidence.

Please.

[thatguyoverthere]

Okay, here's what happened.

1. I made a statement regarding Exxon's position on climate change.
2. JaJae challenged the accuracy of my statement regarding Exxon's position on climate change.
3. I then provided a link to Exxon's position on climate change that backed up my statement.

Then, JaJae says this:

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't have the time/desire to invest in such a debate, especially with someone who uses press releases from Exxon to defend their political views on the issue.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this logic. I need to try again.

• I make a statement about Exxon position.
• JaJae doesn't believe it's really Exxon's position.
• I post a link to Exxon's position that proves my statement correct.
• Now JaJae won't debate me because I posted a link to Exxon to show him Exxon's position.

JaJae does not want to debate me because I made a claim of fact that I then backed up.

Of course, I understand. Why would anyone waste their time debating someone who can back up what they say? That would just lead to losing more arguments.

A better debating technique is making a claim then not backing it up at all, just like JaJae does.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

A better debating technique is making a claim then not backing it up at all, just like JaJae does.

You are so full of yourself. Thanks for my morning laugh. You have been giving me quite a bit of enjoyment in my day lately, thank you.

This is why I choose not to get into a heated debate with you...
The JaJae Call Out Thread

It's not worth my time. We have had back and forth debates on this forum over and over again. You have not responded to every one of my posts, and I have not responded to every one of your posts. I am under no obligation to sit here and comb through the wall of texts that you keep posting, especially when most of them are drivel about press releases from such scientific institutions as Coca-Cola and oil companies. Quite frankly it's not worth my time. It's not worth anyone's time... There's a reason nobody else is jumping in to have this discussion with you and it isn't because everyone sides with you.

Global warming has turned into a political debate, as is evidenced by your list of companies you feel vindicates your point of view. Unlike your high opinion of yourself, you rarely ever present an argument worthy of discussion.

With this new "Climategate" scandal I have been trying to stay out of the bullshit back and forth banter and instead discuss the ramifications, scientific and political involving this data breach. That is what this thread is about. I don't wish to take it off topic to discuss your views of Coca-Cola press releases. Because as I have stated previously, that is just quite frankly a complete waste of my time.

I do not care to involve myself in the pointless political parts of this debate as you seem to do. I used to care about debating the science, but that doesn't go very far.. especially when debating with people who defend Mann's discredited scientific works and attack basic principles accepted by both sides such as the discussion being about what percentage of warming is caused by man. Quite frankly, as your little silly spam list proves, you have WAY more time on your hands than I do. I will spend my time on this forum discussing issues I choose to discuss rather than feed into your pointless Coca-Cola drivel.

On a side note, I think it's safe to say that nobody on this forum but you fails to realize that just because Exxon releases public statements on global warming, but doesn't mean that their company isn't still paying lobbyists to go against the cause. In fact, Exxon is a constant target of alarmist scientists because of their behind the scenes work of throwing wrenches in legislation and science. This is basic information that everyone on this forum knows, even people who don't follow the debate. Yet you, for some reason would be willing to argue this point 20-30 pages. And quite frankly, yet again, I don't have time for your bullshit. You have convinced yourself of wacky views beyond the scientific debate and you just have waaay too much time on your hands. I've gone through this shit in the past with you far too often and the discussion is never relevant or meaningful. If you are unsatisfied with the global warming debates on this forum you are free to seek out other forums for this particular discussion. But don't expect me to sit here and hold up the debate against people with way too much time on their hands who choose to use corporate statements to justify their views. If you want to get into another 10-20 page thread discussing bullshit perhaps this isn't the right forum for you. I have subjected myself to it in the past and am not willing to do it any further.

[Stylerod]

WTF??? These are scientists???

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.


The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

How does this even happen? All of their statistics are based on that raw data and it does not exist in an unaltered form anymore? And people here wonder why there are skeptics???

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

WTF??? These are scientists???



How does this even happen? All of their statistics are based on that raw data and it does not exist in an unaltered form anymore? And people here wonder why there are skeptics???

It's been known they did this for a while, but they finally had to admit it publicly due to the FOI request. They destroyed all their raw data and only kept their altered data. This raw data is the most important data they had, apparently they felt it was expendable.

Imagine if the researchers at CERN decided to destroy years of raw data they receive. Every last director and manager of the facility would be out of the job never to be employed in their field ever again. There is a huge double standard when it comes to climate change "scientists."

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's been known they did this for a while, but they finally had to admit it publicly due to the FOI request. They destroyed all their raw data and only kept their altered data. This raw data is the most important data they had, apparently they felt it was expendable.

Imagine if the researchers at CERN decided to destroy years of raw data they receive. Every last director and manager of the facility would be out of the job never to be employed in their field ever again. There is a huge double standard when it comes to climate change "scientists."

This was the first I had heard of it. No wonder they were unwilling to give it out, they destroyed it!

These emails have been a sort of blessing. It's making them tell the truth

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

This was the first I had heard of it. No wonder they were unwilling to give it out, they destroyed it!

These emails have been a sort of blessing. It's making them tell the truth

Yea, it's bringing everything to the public what the "skeptics" have been complaining about for years. This really isn't new information. If you do a search on the internet I'm sure you'll find plenty of information on this prior to these recent press releases. It had been known for a while, but nobody called them out on it because they were climatologists.

Quoting these posts for posterity:

Originally Posted by JaJae

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

No data was actually "abused". Get your facts straight.

Yes it was. Get your facts straight. CRU like other organizations has a history of deleting an purging public data they don't want to be public. This was well known prior to this hack. What these e-mails show is the "culture of corruption" these scientists were engaged in. If deleting and covering up the purging of climate change data isn't abuse I don't know what is. There's good reason CRU was under investigation and had calls for them to disclose their data, and it wasn't because they were an honest organization.

...

Originally Posted by =Schrödinger's Cat

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes it was. Get your facts straight. CRU like other climate organizations has a history of deleting an purging public data they don't want to be public. This was well known prior to this hack.

Really? Then you wouldn't have a problem showing where the data was purged.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yea, it's bringing everything to the public what the "skeptics" have been complaining about for years. This really isn't new information. If you do a search on the internet I'm sure you'll find plenty of information on this prior to these recent press releases. It had been known for a while, but nobody called them out on it because they were climatologists.

Quoting these posts for posterity:


...

Woops!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

WTF??? These are scientists???

[Times Story]

How does this even happen? All of their statistics are based on that raw data and it does not exist in an unaltered form anymore? And people here wonder why there are skeptics???

You didn't actually quote the best part (shame on you):

"Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years."

Getting rid of raw data is bad, but they (Jones et al.) cant be blamed for the loss of it. I would've liked this article to be a bit less biased, but it is The Times. Of course, they fail to say that the official press releases also said "95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years". You don't see this article actually say what data was lost or its relevance; that part is extremely important. The article is also wrong when it says, "it means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years." It is as if they have never heard of comparative analysis, that there are other research teams that have independently reached a similar result.

It is too early to really comment further. We'll see how this story pans out.