Climategate One Year Later

One of the most revealing documents ever released on how certain scientists who were manipulating data in favor of their conclusions about man-made climate change. Many proponents have been in damage control ever since trying to downplay the significance of those documents…

“What are the impacts from Climategate one year later?  The scientific data continues to build conclusively proving that the Earth is warming. Just today, the National Climatic Data Center based in Asheville, NC confirmed that 2010 is already tied with 1998 as the warmest year on record based on date from January through October 2010.  When the final two months of the year are computed, 2010 may emerge as the uncontested ‘winner.”

So there you have it, after 10 years of a cooling period, 2010 may be one of the warmest, conclusive evidence that man is the cause, right? Not exactly…If the evidence is so overwhelming then why was there a climategate in the first place?

Also, why was there a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under the British Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles if climate change was caused by man? The mainstream media practically avoided covering the story. There has only been since the documents were leaked to the public a year ago, twelve stories. Instead of reporting the news, their beliefs were injected into the stories, for example, Last December, Anne Thompson cited “experts” to bolster global warming science, saying “They say it doesn’t matter what’s in those emails. The Earth is changing.” So committed fraud by hiding “the decline,” evading government laws or trying to keep skeptics from being published didn’t matter to the mainstream media, which had been producing story after story for years about the supposed threat of climate change.

Some other errors were discovered as well last year, such as the Himalayan glaciers were going to disappear in 2035 which was used as climate-change evidence, rather than in 2350—an error drawn to the public’s attention not by a newspaper or a “skeptic” blogger but ….by an IPCC author.

Despite damage control in full mode, the public at large has become even more skeptical of the cause of climate-change, historically before cars were invented places like Greenland went through a warming period, (that’s how it got it’s name) then started to go through a cooling period where the Vikings who settled there had to leave. So when there are fluctuations in temperatures, it’s not proof in itself that man is the cause. Computer models are not conclusive evidence either.

What we learned from climategate is, proponents want to restore much of the earth back to the animals, and treat man like a disease that needs to stop spreading. We also learned that scientists will manipulate the data even more so now because their allies have cleared them and no punishment happened as a result.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Climategate One Year Later

  1. Michael, don’t you know that scientists are always right, unless they think out side the theories of man made global warning or evolution, then they get labeled as creationists or global warming denier and then we can ignore them.

  2. Michael,

    You say “So there you have it, after 10 years of a cooling period, 2010 may be one of the warmest, conclusive evidence that man is the cause, right? Not exactly…If the evidence is so overwhelming then why was there a climategate in the first place?”

    Your logic being:

    1. For global warming to be true, ALL scientists on the subject must be telling the absulute truth.

    2. If ANY scientist gets caught in a lie, global warming is false.

    3. Some got caught in a lie, therefore the ENTIRE science on global warming is therefore false.

    Michael, I am not big on the global warming movement either, but you are commiting a logical fallacy known as a Non-Sequitor…That is, the conclusion doesn’t follow the premise.. You are forgetting many honest scientists who do research and WHO DO think global warming is indisputable. You cannot judge THESE honest scientists by the misdeeds of a few.

  3. krissmith777 you are committing the logical fallacy of a strawman attack.

    I don’t want to speak for Michael, but I did not see in his article where any of your 3 points apply.

    You are also missing the point that the scientists that where busted where the leading scientists in the field. These where the scientists that the other scientists quoted from.

    All though I do not believe that the issue is settled either direction, the lack of persecution for those caught in “climategate” is what is most hideous.

  4. mcoville

    You say “krissmith777 you are committing the logical fallacy of a strawman attack. I don’t want to speak for Michael, but I did not see in his article where any of your 3 points apply.”

    Then you need to raise your reading comprehension, because I quoted him as asking If the evidence is so overwhelming then why was there a climategate in the first place?”

    And yes, it does apply. He is implying that because we have climategate, that would indicate that the overall evidence for climate change is not overwhelming. No! That is a non-sequitor.

  5. Political scientists have a term called the “ethical discount rate.” It is a measure of the extent to which people prefer their own comfort to the well-being of their grandchildren. For example, how much did Americans in the past decade prefer to spend themselves into overweening debt to the detriment of saving to pass wealth to their descendants? Quite a bit, as it turns out.

    Or to what extent are we willing to deny human-induced climate change in order to maintain our standard of living without—yet—paying the true cost of the Earth’s resources that we use up.[1] Creationists in particular seem to be climate denialists. In fact, it has always wondered me why those who believe that a beneficent God created the Earth tend to defecate on that awesome creation as though it were their own personal toilet.[2]

    Because our present course, even if it does not bring as much climatological change as Scientific American claims, leads us eventually into a bleak future of shortages, conflict, and despair. This is already happening. What do you think thousands of Sudanese are killing each other about in Darfur? Sheer cussedness? No. Their water supply is disappearing, and more people are fighting over less water. Where does all that poverty come from in Bangladesh? Are they less capable than others? No. The sea is rising and poisoning their water supply. Why do you see commercials on TV that advocate more oil production in the US? Why should anyone object to more domestic oil? Because this oil shale requires 100 gallons of water to produce one gallon of oil, and their use would deprive farmers and ranchers. Russia has sent submersibles to map out and plant Russian flags on the Arctic seafloor to claim it as theirs. Who cares, and why did they never do this before? Because of Arctic melting, the resources that underlie this ocean become accessible—and five countries are already disputing over them.

    These are situations that have already produced conflict and death. The future holds more. The Himalayan glaciers may not melt by 2035; it may be a hundred years after that. Buit one-third of the entire world population depends upon the water from those glaciers. Even a small decrease will be significant—as the Chinese are already aware. .

    An ironic aspect is that taking steps now to mitigate climate change would produce many benefits. Less dependence on a commodity whose world production is already, or within a decade, of all-time highest production? Less air pollution? Ask anyone who has been to Shanghai—-my son takes along a face mask when he travels there.

    The problem is that there is a temporary cost in getting to a cleaner Earth. Like having to buy a lift ticket in order to enjoy the downhill rush of the ski slopes.[3] Another ironic twist is that authoritarian govenrments seem to be the most willing to pay these costs. When we install wind turbines in the US, whare do they come from? They are designed and manufactured in China. Which country is the world leader in carbon-sequestration technology? Again, China.[4]

    Climate-change science is on the forefront of our abilities to measure, let alone predict the effects of future actions. Nevertheless, the science is solid. We may quibble whether 85% or 90% of the change is human-induced, human causes preponderate. We may cavil at 10-year cooling periods, but the overall trend is unmistakable. The Himalayas might take 150 years to melt rather than 25, but melt they will. The problem is that, by the time the problem penetrates the thick skulls enough to press them into action, the range of available options will be sharply reduced, if not gone altogether. “Why didn’t anyone warn us?” they will lament. Well, they did.

    Evolution has shown that every species tends to outstrip its food supply. This has led to a number of documented extinctions. Homo sapiens may be the next. Unless our intelligence allows us to overcome natural limitations. Thus far, however, the colossal ignorance and denial shown in the climate-change debate indicates that we are not yet at this stage.

    Denialists often point out that the Earth has in the past survived even greater climate variations than scientists now predict. True enough. But they fail to note that these variations did kill off the dominant life forms of their day, those at the top of the food chain. In this day, humans are at the top of the food chain.

    We should therefore be afraid. We should be very afraid.

    ================

    [1] One might also ask how long we are willing to pay terrorists to destroy us, by buying oil from the Middle East. Another question

    [2] It is also wondrous strange that those who are the most ignorant of the scientific principles are the most certain that they understand the issue.

    [3] It is almost laughable that a large step in the right direction could be accomplished with a mere accounting change. If the cost of depleting their resources were to be subtracted from the GDP of all countries, their governments would forthwith take steps to conserve them. Stupid, but true.

    [4] This may seem incorrect, since China is also a leader in opposing global controls. The resolution is that they fear being penalized when the developed countries gain a temporary advantage because China started from a smaller base level.

  6. One of the loudest charges thrown in the Climategate donnybrook is that a scientist said he employed a “trick” in presenting the data.

    let’s see what the scientific ignorance quotient is among the denialist readers hereabouts. The term “trick” is well known in research science. What does a scientist mean when he says he used a “trick” to pull out some data?

    Here’s an extra-credit question. When a scientist tells a colleague that he is investigating a “toy” system, what does he mean? What is a “toy,” and why would someone study it?

    .

    I thought not.

  7. Oh, yeah. here’s another one. Sometimes a researcher will “fudge” data from observations or experiments. What is a “fudge factor”? And how does it differ from a :”finagle factor”?

    Climategate arose because the public has no understanding of how science is actually practiced. They imagine chemists bent over boiling flasks where the reactants trurn from blue to an unmistakable brown in the flask, where a meter jumps unambiguously from a zero value to 13.482257 millihelens, where the thermometers read actual temperature of the air in a city, and all you need do is read the scale on the column..

    The solution to this problem is not to throw the scientists out. It is to educate the public as to what they are doing, what confidence levels they have and why.

    Conservatives love to deride the idea of “death panels” to determine what procedures are appropriate, and presided over by government officials with no understanding of medical practices. Yet these same people presume to set up death panels of politicians and media moguls to judge the climate of the Earth, with no appreciation of the scientific issues involved.

    .

  8. Krissmith777: “And yes, it does apply. [Michael] is implying that because we have climategate, that would indicate that the overall evidence for climate change is not overwhelming. No! That is a non-sequitor [sic].”

    Kris, Michael’s problem is that he cannot free himself from theological modes of argument.

    If one could show, for example, that Jesus lied about his oneness with God, then Christianity would be ipso facto shown to be untenable, no matter what the actual state of affairs might be. Thus, questioning the veracity of the source of a revelation is a valid argument against a religious doctrine.

    Michael cannot get through his mineralized skull that scientific theories stand or fall on evidence alone. A scientist could be as dishonest as the day is short—but if his theory is borne out by the evidence, then the theory is correct.

    This is one of the many reasons that we question Michael’s qualifications to propound not only the content of science, but its practice as well. Since he has refused for almost a year to disclose his qualifications to us when challenged, we still do not know whether he is pertinaciously perverse, or deliberately deceptive.

  9. Kriss,

    You say,

    “1. For global warming to be true, ALL scientists on the subject must be telling the absolute truth.”

    The Earth has gone through climate change both warming and cooling well before the invention of cars and factories. It’s an historical fact.

    “2. If ANY scientist gets caught in a lie, global warming is false.”

    Why would a scientist need to lie if he or she has the evidence? There is no excuse for what they did. If a scientist does that, they should be fired! Honest scientists should replace them otherwise tainting the evidence could continue.

    3. Some got caught in a lie, therefore the ENTIRE science on global warming is therefore false.

    No, what evidence has been presented, part of it has been tainted by corrupt scientists (climategate), no distinction on being able to tell between if it’s historical warming or cooling or if it’s man-made. Temps that flux is not evidence in itself.

    Watch, these same man-made global warming proponents will claim that this year was either as warm as 1998 or warmer. I was in Florida earlier this year, I went snorkeling and while I was admiring the beauties of the ocean, there was white coral. The coral turned white because Florida was experiencing cold weather. It was one of the coldest on record.

    What Climategate revealed, certain scientists can and do commit research fraud for their cause. There is no hard evidence linking man-made CO2 which is a tiny fraction being produced compared with nature concerning the weather. Speaking of which, the weather is highly complex, scientists do not fully understand most of it’s implications concerning this issue. I do believe reduction in pollution is important for health reasons. Half of my electricity comes from renewable energy which I would like to know how many of those same scientists who believe in man-made global warming do even that. Until there is evidence with distinctions, man-made global warming is nothing more than a political issue.

  10. Michael,

    Youy say “The Earth has gone through climate change both warming and cooling well before the invention of cars and factories. It’s an historical fact. “

    Uh, Michael, I am not denying that. Re-read my first comment. I say very clearly that I am not much on the global warming bandwagon.

    You then say, “Why would a scientist need to lie if he or she has the evidence? There is no excuse for what they did. If a scientist does that, they should be fired! Honest scientists should replace them otherwise tainting the evidence could continue. “

    No, there is no excuse for exagerating date, but I am not making any for them. ALL this proves is that some scientists got over-eager to make the point. THAT HOWEVER should not be taken to say that ALL the date TAKEN BY DIFFERENT SCIENTISTS that DOES spupport it IS therefore false.

    Then you say “What Climategate revealed, certain scientists can and do commit research fraud for their cause.”

    Michael, Michael, Michael,… again, I am not defending them. Re-read my first comment. I am not on the global warming bandwagon. I am probably the closest to a “claimate skeptic” I can get without accusing ALL scientists. You need to understand that just because CERTAIN scientists were willing to distort the data, it doesn’t follow that the overall science is wrong. ALL THIS PROVES IS THAT SOME SCIENTISTS GOT OVER EAGER. I AM NOT DEFENDING IT. BUT THAT’S ALL IT PROVES.

  11. Kris, again Michael misses the entire point of your comments. He just doesn’t get it. I think he never will.

  12. Kris, your comments here are “pour l’encouragement des autres,” as they say. To tell the story to others who may be more receptive..

  13. “Do Americans Believe in Modern Earth Science?”

    —————————-

    Abstract

    Half of US respondents to the 2006 General Social Surveys did not believe in the “Big Bang” origin of the universe; they were closely correlated with those who did not believe in human evolution. Religious fundamentalism is the major predictor of both disbeliefs. Low education and political conservatism have lesser but independent effects. The notion of continental drift (plate tectonics) faces relatively little opposition from religious fundamentalists, and according to survey responses, its validity is widely accepted, more so than the fact of a heliocentric solar system.

    ————————–

    There you have it. Although climate-change denialism was not included in that survey, I would bet that it tracks Big Bang and evolution.

    Especially interesting is the last part of the last sentence: Apparently a significant number of creationists still deny that the Earth revolves about the Sun.

  14. Olorin,

    I really don’t see the problem some fundamentalists have with the big bang. There are some which actually make it into an argument for God (I.e., the kalam cosmoogical argument). . . As a Christian myself, I do accept the Big Bang, …though I am not personally crazy about the Kalam Cosmological argument since it’s premise is wrong…though I would actually say that a DIFFERENT argument COULD POSSIBLY be made…Problem is, I’m not a cosmologist, so EVEN MY argument would still be problematic.

    –About it being “the origin of the universe,”… Well, there is a paper on Talk.Origins which is on the subject, and it points out that it is not really about the beginning, though it DOESN’T really dispute the thought that it COULD be a beginning.

    I am somewhere outside of the trend in the abstract: I accept evolution, the big bang, …my weak point is climate change, though I believe most of the scientists that work on it are honest….unlike Michael. — I have learned, however, NOT to be dogmatically set against a science I just do not like…Though I would Identify myself as a “little bit” of a skeptic,…I would also say that the overall science may in fact be true and we should not ignore it.

  15. Kris: “About it being “the origin of the universe,”… Well, there is a paper on Talk.Origins which is on the subject, and it points out that it is not really about the beginning, though it DOESN’T really dispute the thought that it COULD be a beginning.”

    Exactly. Big Bang cosmology is not about the origin of the universe (if there is one: it could always have existed !!), but about the very early universe. That is not the same thing. We haven’t got a clue what happened before the Planck time: we simply lack a consistent physical model for the energy scales involved at that time. Of course we are trying !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s