nvm

[Earthling]

It also seems relevant to me to point out that some of the people being "criticized" weren't exactly "coworkers" but people at far away institutions that some of the individuals might rarely have only met face to face. Kinda changes the "politeness" of things.

Since no other poster is going to be allowed to comment on CFC moderation in general, unless somehow permission is given, that seems very underhanded to attempt to bring up. And, well, just in regular posting it seems you've badmouthed plenty of NZ politicians, insofar as if you were ever running for a major office or something CFC alone could probably screw you over, but I don't know enough about NZ politics.

 

[Mise]

This is getting a lot off-topic, but it is the truth. Maybe its that I'm not stupid enough to slag off people in e-mails. Once you publish something in an e-mail, you lose control over it.

As an analogy, I've never had a warning at CFC, either, which is probably evidence of consistent behaviour (even with 5000+ posts before I was a mod).

Fair play, the CFC analogy is pretty convincing - but I'd wager, on the same basis, that you're the exception rather than the rule. Most people do criticise their co-workers (EDIT: yeah, Earthling's point is a good one - they weren't co-workers but actually rivals...); whether that be via email or telephone, letter or face to face, it doesn't matter. And to say that you "lose control over it" is a slight exaggeration -- since it took 10 years and group of Russian hackers to access them!

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, that isn't true at all, because the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that GW is caused by humans! There is worldwide academic consensus on the issue...

Well, that isn't really true. That is a classical Manbearpig oversimplification of how most atmospheric scientists feel about the issue. What they do agree for the most part is that man has indeed contributed to the problem, but the issue has always been how much and what effect that may actually have.

Once again, we are at the cusp of a naturally occurring ice age where it is quite expected to have a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a quite natural cyclical phenomenon as this graph clearly shows:

As you can see, CO2 has always naturally peaked during these periods. The anthro CO2 is a small percentage of that total. Exactly how much is anthro CO2 and what effect it may have on global warming is a matter of speculation at this point. There is no real doubt it does have an effect, but how much? And how much of that can we realistically reduce without crippling the global economy are the real question that remain unanswered even today.

This is what inevitably happens when politics interferes with science to such a colossal degree.

 

[Camikaze]

This is getting a lot off-topic, but it is the truth. Maybe its that I'm not stupid enough to slag off people in e-mails. Once you publish something in an e-mail, you lose control over it.

But the point stands that emails are by no means proof of a conspiracy, even if they seemingly indicate it.

 

[Earthling]

No, we're not on the "cusp of an ice age" by any measure. And CO2 levels are higher now that at any point in those previous cycles, though that's left out of your version of that graph, but that alone indicates something is amiss.

 

[Mise]

@Formaldehyde: No, there is absolutely a global academic consensus that global warming is caused by humans. There is absolutely no doubt that the overwhelming majority of scientists think that global warming is caused by humans. Paper after paper of scientific research has been published, proving that global warming is caused by humans. Academic institutions across the world have issued public declarations confirming AGW. It's simply not true that scientists disagree on whether humans are causing global warming -- the overwhelming majority agree that this is the case. I have no idea why so many people are under the completely false impression that there is some sort of disagreement among scientists on AGW, when time and time again institutions across the world confirm and publicly declare AGW

 

[Earthling]

I have no comment for this topic.

Short-term memory loss much, you already posted?

This is great!

And in fact, I have to say that's very interesting, since your comment in fact brought up a very unusual and unique viewpoint, that perhaps scientific fraud would be "great."

Also, @Mise, like was being discussed earlier, the people of a certain "agenda" as MobBoss or others have hinted at on this thread haven't been posting here, but they are very common in certain populations, particularly the US, which is why there is/is perceived to be a lot of controversy.

 

[ainwood]

I have no comment for this topic.

Moderator Action: Then I will delete your post.

@Others: Please don't derail this by posting or insuinuating any motives by people who haven't posted in the thread.

 

[Riffraff]

As you can see, CO2 has always naturally peaked during these periods. The anthro CO2 is a small percentage of that total. Exactly how much is anthro CO2 and what effect it may have on global warming is a matter of speculation at this point. There is no real doubt it does have an effect, but how much? And how much of that can we realistically reduce without crippling the global economy are the real question that remain unanswered.

So now we're arguing that even the CO2 increase isn't significantly caused by the millions of tons of CO2 being pumped into the atmoshpere?

your graph was missing something....

 

[El_Machinae]

As you can see, CO2 has always naturally peaked during these periods. The anthro CO2 is a small percentage of that total. Exactly how much is anthro CO2 and what effect it may have on global warming is a matter of speculation at this point.

I think you should look up what the current ppm is, and where it would be on that graph.
(edit) the fossil fuel CO2 is in the air & in the ocean, with a few percentages being in plants.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is still just a fraction of the natural component. And we really don't know what actual effect that amount of additional CO2 may actually have on the environment. That is all speculation and theories at this stage, largely based on models which have been created by those who have an apparent agenda to show that the crisis is of immense proportions to provoke drastic measures be taken.

Then there is the issue if the next ice age starts tomorrow. We could suddenly find that we actually want to generate all the CO2 we could possibly use to keep the global temperature from plummeting.

The point is that scientific objectivity has again been apparently manipulated by politics. Exactly how much effect that has been on the data and the theories presented so far remains to be seen.

There really is no room for politics in science. Ironically, until recently it was the "bury our heads in the sand" side that had control of the process. Now, it is the other side. Neither approach is acceptable as far as I am concerned. After all, we are quite possibly gambling the future economic fate of the world on the decisions that are being made.

But one thing is fairly certain. Eventually, the scientific method will win out. We will find out the answers. Hopefully, it won't be after we have done something monumentally stupid which negatively effects all mankind for the next century or so.

 

[El_Machinae]

That is still just a fraction of the natural component.

Depends upon how you look at it.

380-280 is 100.

So, it's a 'fraction' of 280 (100/280). That's a pretty big fraction.
However, you can see that CO2 cycles between 200 & 280. So, going up to 380 is essentially over a doubling of the natural rise from baseline.

 

[uppi]

So an 30% increase above the total maximum, exceeding the variation of the past by far and on a way shorter timescale now only counts as "just a fraction of the natural component"?

The ethics of some climatologist might be questionable, but at least they're not engaging in blatant fraud like the usual sceptics.

 

[amadeus]

Link to video.

Torrenting!

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I want to see scientific papers flying around.

 

[JerichoHill]

Heck, there's a good bit of literature in economics now trying to figure out the cost of the warming and of the pollutants.

I think the consensus of global warming is solid. Maybe we don't know the right theory

I mean, 25 years ago we didn't know a meteor killed the dinosaurs. We thought it was something else. Then we find the crater at the Yucatan. And now we find a bigger one in India...so the cause changed again. This is the process of science

 

[Angst]

Download the torrent dude, look the emails yourself. There IS A CONSPIRACY, the emails make it blatantly obvious.

First of all, the OP states there are about a thousand of emails, and you sit on your lazy butt and expect me to bother my way through getting a torrenting program, waiting for the seeding to finish and then look until I have sufficient information to prove you wrong? You being here talking with me doesn't involve posting links as arguments. The thing you are trying to shove down my throat now is actually worse since I actually have to get a program designated to read thousands of emails because you're apparently too convinced from them to bother otherwise. Please tell me what the hell you are trying to prove.

As having been said, none of the sources are trustable, the argument in itself is hilarious at first as well.

Also, to be noted, there is no reason whatsoever for a scientist to risk his reputation and spend his ability on time on conspiracies.

Note that as a general rule, conspiracies don't exist. The simple reason being that the profit gained from it is always much easier acquired through normal means - the bigger the profit (Which depends on the conspiracy's size, you know), the harder it is for the conspirator to hide. I mean, e-mails. Here's what's written in the article about the emails:

"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."

This could just as easily have come from an e-mail which said

___

"Hi John.

The data didn't prove to be as sufficient as we expected, so I'm afraid it isn't accurate enough to go public. Instead publish the good results we got last week from the thermographic experiment, the other thing is a dead end. Get rid of it and delete it, thanks. Oh, and if Bob asks, tell him you lost the documents, not that it was a failure. I don't want to spend a whole night being humiliated by his postulates about the AGW apparently nonexistent.

See you, Tim."

___

I don't imagine a scientist sitting with an evil laughter, happy that he has convinced the world that global warming was a fact, resulting in them knowing something that isn't true.

Finally, this "conspiracy" doesn't ever prove global warming wrong; especially since you might consider there are plenty of other scientists that are still very certain it is happening.

To conclude; the thing is, they don't have any reason to conspire. They're freaking scientists.

You know, I did make a perfectly fine thread about another conspiracy here on CFC the other day, perhaps you could pay that a visit and become further enlightened.

 

[innonimatu]

Holy crap hacked emails falsify the overwhelming body of scientific evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What overwhelming body of evidence? Where is the raw data which would allow other scientists to validate the CRU's models? You know, the one they have been shown to be conspiring to not publish or share with anyone who might disagree with their conclusions?

Is that science? Unfortunately, it is. From what I've seen, it is standard practice to hide the raw data and publish only conclusions, whenever one can get away with it. Hides potential mistakes, hides "deliberate mistakes", and avoids giving any advantage to groups competing for the same funding. Science is a rat race.
There are plenty of groups capable of dominating the main journals in their specific field and get away with this behavior. I'm not surprised to see those emails showing that the priesthood of climatology has been doing that.

As I said, they would get far, far more money, power and influence if they supported large oil companies, car makers, mining companies and heavy industry... I mean, Jesus Christ, how many billions and billions of dollars do oil companies have at their disposal?? Compare that with a university researcher's salary Some "reward"...

The kind of people who make their careers in universities are not in it for the money. They need money for their research, and good wages for personal expenses, but it is their ego which motivates them. Influence among their peers - and with governments, why not - is what they seek.
And in any case do not underestimate the millions in research grants which have been increasingly devoted to global warmists, as they have escalated their dire predictions. Not its current alliance with Wall Street finance for carbon-trading schemes, another monumental fraud on the making, one more bubble built on worthless "assets": CO2 emission licenses created out of nothing by governments. Meaning both an extra form of tax on energy, and useless trades of that virtual asset where the financiers will be sure to get a cut from each transaction - Free money for them!

Keep in mind that the people who're now denying that AGW is occurring are the same people who were recently actively denying that there was even warming. They were so far out of the loop back then, that it took them ten years longer to figure out something. They didn't notice the warming then, and they don't have a mechanism for the warming now.
[...]
There are multiple datasets regarding warming.

I do not believe that a present trend towards global warming has been reasonably proven. I do not trust the datasets. Those I actually managed to find when I first became curious about this global warming (or it it "climate change" now - are the "climatologists" covering their ass?) some two years ago had no raw data available, and were not clear about the methods used. Data collected from present temperature monitoring stations is contradictory, and both the number and quality of those stations has changed over the years. Data for long-term climate reconstructions has been obtained through very indirect methods from just a few sources, and extrapolated for the whole planet - a planet for which we cannot yet even be sure of its present climate patterns!

 

[classical_hero]

Honest question - do you seriously believe that they kept sceptics out of peer reviewed literature?

Actually they do. This is a transcript of a radio show called "The Australian Science Show" on ABC Radio.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2629061.htm

Robyn Williams: Of course you've got a tremendous overview of the published papers, not only in your own journal but in other journals. Out of 1,000 papers on climate change, how many can you remember that go against the trend? Any?

Bruce Alberts: Well, I get lots of complaints from people who want to publish papers saying climate change doesn't exist, but they have a hard time getting their papers published because they don't pass peer review. So there are actually very few papers that get published in the peer review literature that seriously challenge in any way the basic hypothesis...

 

[Arwon]

People who think the sky is a carpet with holes in it that the light shines through have a hard time getting published in astronomy journals too.