Jump to content


Photo

Climategate Email Leak 2.0


136 replies to this topic

#16 August1991

August1991

    Voltaire's Bastard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montréal

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:37 PM

Maybe you don't know enough to draw any conclusions, but people that study the environment for a living have already drawn a conclusion a long time ago. You just refuse to acknowledge it because it might cost too much money.

On the contrary, the effect of human CO2, or other human forcing emissions, are just not evident.

Read the emails. Look at the reports. Heck, read threads on this forum.

We simply don't understand how the earth arrives at a temperature. Clouds are a tremendous factor, the sun too, and the oceans absorb CO2 and heat. Go figure.

If 6 billion people drive SUVs and fly to Paris in an Airbus 380 every week, will it change things? We don't know. Are the tar sands/oil sands a major change? We don't know.

----

My default opinion is what my mother taught me: Leave a place as good as you found it: Fold the sheets.

----

Around the world, people face local environmental problems. Collectively, we face huge environmental problems.

When the UN/IPCC and so-called experts argue that "global warming/climate change/AGW/etc" have caused tremendous harm to the environment, I disagree.

IMV, we must instead help people to live better, and protect their local environment.

Edited by August1991, 22 November 2011 - 10:49 PM.

"In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2

#17 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:42 PM

The emails of Climategate were specifically selected to fool people like you, Auguste. Much was implied as to a global conspiracy, but the only thing that was clear was that they didn't respond to FOI requests.

#18 TimG

TimG

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,609 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:43 PM

But I have a strong opposition to people tearing down any institution that is still standing just because it's fashionable to do so. I'm starting to understand what it must have felt like to be over 30 in the 1960s.

I think it is worth remembering is it takes 2 to tango. I have lost track of the number of activists who claim that people who oppose mitigation policies because of the economics are 'denying the science'. Such a strategy forces people response by attacking the credibility of the scientists.

#19 August1991

August1991

    Voltaire's Bastard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montréal

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:46 PM

The emails of Climategate were specifically selected to fool people like you, Auguste. Much was implied as to a global conspiracy, but the only thing that was clear was that they didn't respond to FOI requests.

Michael, are the leaks false?

You use the word "selected". Does that matter?
"In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2

#20 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:51 PM

Michael, are the leaks false?

You use the word "selected". Does that matter?

Out of context, they are misleading... yes it matters.

What do you think when you read a leaked private email from a climate scientist who says it's a travesty that we can't show warming?

I ask you... does it sound like a cover up?

#21 jbg

jbg

    Theresa Spence - my political hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC Area (40 Trudeau Units from NYC)
  • Interests:Politics, running, skiing

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:51 PM

The true climategate is how conservative groups are trying to deny the fact of global warming.

Oh yes. How about the possibility, also quite real, that there are warming and cooling cycles?
Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
==============
Clarke Institute (link), home page for much of this site.
==============
Islamism and Communism (and Fascism)equal contempt of what the West represents - freedom and achievement (per Bob)

#22 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:53 PM

Oh yes. How about the possibility, also quite real, that there are warming and cooling cycles?

I do think that has been considered.

#23 TimG

TimG

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,609 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:53 PM

Out of context, they are misleading... yes it matters.

Sorry. That is just talking point with no substance.

The e-mail have enough context to expose the writers as individuals who are obessed with protecting their 'cause' and feel no guilt about misleading the public about the state of the science. There is no "context" that could possibly change that impression.

#24 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:54 PM

Sorry. That is just talking point with no substance.

The e-mail have enough context to expose the writers as individuals who are obessed with protecting their 'cause' and feel no guilt about misleading the public about the state of the science. There is no "context" that could possibly change that impression.

Does my example show this?

#25 TimG

TimG

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,609 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:55 PM

I do think that has been considered.

There are no definitive proofs in this field. It has been dismissed because the current paradigm requires that it be dismissed. In 10 years we may find the paradigm shifts. It always is important to distinguish between what is actually known (CO2 is GHG) vs. what is speculation (emissions will lead to X degC of warming). Speculation can change. Actual facts won't.

Edited by TimG, 22 November 2011 - 10:56 PM.


#26 TimG

TimG

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,609 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:58 PM

Does my example show this?

What? Tremberth admits to his buddies that the sceptics are right and there a gap between the measured temperatures and the models? How is that out of context? Knowing that he thinks that they can adjust the data instead of changing the theory does not help his case.

Edited by TimG, 22 November 2011 - 10:59 PM.


#27 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:02 PM

What? Tremberth admits to his buddies that the sceptics are right and there a gap between the measured temperatures and the models? How is that out of context? Knowing that he thinks that they can adjust the data instead of changing the theory does not help his case.

From what I read, this wasn't a private admission - he had already said as much publicly, so why is it news?

#28 TimG

TimG

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,609 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:09 PM

From what I read, this wasn't a private admission - he had already said as much publicly, so why is it news?

It might have been known to a narrow circle of scientists but it certainly was not widely known. In fact, anytime a sceptic pointed out the truth the sceptic was attacked by alarmists for 'denying the science'. This makes it extremely relevant and makes it quite disingenuous for alarmists to claim that it was public knowledge now.

Edited by TimG, 22 November 2011 - 11:15 PM.


#29 August1991

August1991

    Voltaire's Bastard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,651 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montréal

Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:16 PM

From what I read, this wasn't a private admission - he had already said as much publicly, so why is it news?

Michael, you are admirably reasonable.

I aspire to your reasonable open minded approach.

-----

Now, compare the East Anglia people with the CERN people: Speed of light and global warming.

Who is correct, curious, scientific?
"In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2

#30 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 23 November 2011 - 06:42 AM

It might have been known to a narrow circle of scientists but it certainly was not widely known. In fact, anytime a sceptic pointed out the truth the sceptic was attacked by alarmists for 'denying the science'. This makes it extremely relevant and makes it quite disingenuous for alarmists to claim that it was public knowledge now.


But the general public, hearing of an email 'leak' was given the impression by the MSM that this was a candid admission. Nothing in climate science is 'widely known' unless the MSM makes a political fight out of it.



Reply to this topic