Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

[cyberianpan]

I can tell you it will be on average both warmer and sunnier than it currently is. The main climate driver will have reversed by then, see. It's pretty predictable.

Nonsense. They got their original temperature predictions totally wrong years back, and even still their "science" remains highly uncertain

Climate change accelerating beyond expectations, according to top climate scientists

No, they aren't. They're claiming a range with error bars. There are economists, or contrarians like Lomborg, who use pseudo-precise figures in order to justify claims that we should do nothing.

Lomborg uses very precise figures and doesn't like the current efforts to stop climate change

Lomborg campaigns for an unconventional position on climate change: he opposes the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, and argues that we should instead adapt to short-term temperature rises as they are inevitable, and spend money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions

You were the one arguing for physics...

Nooooo . I was pointing out that physics attracts first rate minds, to date subjects like "geography" & "environmental sciences" have not been the place where the best & brightest go in college. That said I would like a first rate physicist who actually worked in the area.... say did advanced modelling of climatechangeology.

Seriously, Cyp, it's not going to make a blind bit of difference whether one giant egg-head emerges who you find satisfactory. Personally, I'm happy enough with the legions of working scientists who make up working science. The process is important, not the personalities. You can call for it all you like, or fold your arms and refuse to accept the science until one does. Whatever floats your personal boat - just remember that boat is only notional.

I'm not sure exactly what your issue with the precautionary principle is, but I suspect you wouldn't have turned it down in the case of Mount St Helens, unlike a number of dead people. In this case, I presume it really means that you don't accept the predicted impacts (did you read any of the links?) and are therefore assuming that climate change planning is only taking place on a 'just in case' basis. Again, you're wrong.

I cited an article demolishing the precautionary principle ... the Stern report relied heavily on this nonsense

My main point is that this week we've seen what happens when 2nd and 3rd rate scientists are given positions of great responsibility by Fate... they fluff it. They turn out to be Luddites who are scared to release their base data, and seek to stifle dissent. Their modus operandi is that of any fool who is given power.

I cited a very clear example of a top flight scientist - E O Wilson who has worked in "climate change" .. or well more specifically "biosphere change". He made a sound empirical case proving loss of biodiversity - linked it to specific causes - and made clear-minded theoretical arguments why we should oppose loss of biodiversity.

At this stage it I've cited sources on this thread disproving consensus on 1,2 & 4. And have asked you to demonstrate the consensus on 3. There isn't consensus...

1) Level of climate change
2) Degree to which it is man made
3) Possible extent of damaging effects
4) Possible remedies

Thus

My suggestion would be to get a small working group, say 4-6 people, of scientists/economists of stellar reputation (e.g. Nobel laureates) - and have them report back in 3 months on those 4 issues

This issue is to important to leave to the "B-team" ... we've seen how slovenly and unable they are this week.

cYp

[ibis]

Well, I wish you the best of luck in that irrelevant endeavour.

[imokyrok]

The Daily Mash - CLIMATE CHANGE EMAILS STOP GLACIERS FROM MELTING

[Polytics.Irie]

Climategate: the whitewash begins – Telegraph Blogs

Breaking news from the splendid Bishop Hill. It seems the AGW establishment has launched an urgent damage limitation exercise in order to whitewash the Climategate scandal in time for Copenhagen.

Here’s the (so far unconfirmed) story:

1) Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.

2) Foreign Office and government leaning heavily on UEA to keep a lid on everything lest it destabilises Copenhagen.

3) CRU asked to prepare data for a pre-emptive release in past couple of days but trouble reconciling issues between data bases has stopped this.

The appointment of Lord Rees, if confirmed, is especially worrying. It’s the rough equivalent of appointing King Herod’s grand vizier to investigate a mysterious outbreak of mass baby killing in Judaea.

First, Lord Rees – formerly Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal – is very much of the catastrophist mindset which helped launch the whole AGW scare in the first place. Five years ago, he declared:

“I think the odds are no better than 50/50 that our present civilisation will survive to the end of the present century.”.........

[Polytics.Irie]

Who's to blame for Climategate? - Telegraph

Unlikely as it may seem, however, this little corner of East Anglia is now ground zero in a controversy which just might influence the entire future of our planet.

A little over a week ago, hundreds of internal emails written by scientists working at the CRU were obtained by a hacker and posted on the internet, some of which appeared to show that researchers had deliberately faked evidence of global warming by manipulating statistics.

At first, the fallout was restricted to a row between climate change experts, played out in scientific journals and specialist internet blogs, but in the past few days, as the ripples have spread around the globe, "Climategate" has become a white hot political issue which has been seized upon by global warming sceptics and now threatens to overshadow next month's crucial climate change conference in Copenhagen.

In the US, where the CRU emails have been cited as proof of "the greatest act of scientific fraud in history", there are very real fears that hardline Republicans – together with powerful Right-wing media organisations – will use the scandal to scupper President Obama's proposed legislation to cap carbon emissions.

In Australia, the world's worst carbon dioxide polluter per capita, 10 opposition front bench MPs have resigned in protest at a proposed carbon bill, their resolve seemingly strengthened by the emergence of the emails.

[Wakeupcall]

Who's to blame for Climategate? - Telegraph

Unlikely as it may seem, however, this little corner of East Anglia is now ground zero in a controversy which just might influence the entire future of our planet.

A little over a week ago, hundreds of internal emails written by scientists working at the CRU were obtained by a hacker and posted on the internet, some of which appeared to show that researchers had deliberately faked evidence of global warming by manipulating statistics.

At first, the fallout was restricted to a row between climate change experts, played out in scientific journals and specialist internet blogs, but in the past few days, as the ripples have spread around the globe, "Climategate" has become a white hot political issue which has been seized upon by global warming sceptics and now threatens to overshadow next month's crucial climate change conference in Copenhagen.

In the US, where the CRU emails have been cited as proof of "the greatest act of scientific fraud in history", there are very real fears that hardline Republicans – together with powerful Right-wing media organisations – will use the scandal to scupper President Obama's proposed legislation to cap carbon emissions.

In Australia, the world's worst carbon dioxide polluter per capita, 10 opposition front bench MPs have resigned in protest at a proposed carbon bill, their resolve seemingly strengthened by the emergence of the emails.

I hope the mainstream peeps wake up. I had newstalk on early this morning at the silly woman guest was bleating on about climate change and how we need to reduce emmisions to stop it. Silly woman and dumbass presenter listening to her.

[Polytics.Irie]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Hide The Decline - Climategate[/ame]

I hear you WU, we'll see how it pans out, but humans are stuborn creatures, ego tends to lead intellect.

[Polytics.Irie]

DaveC on Nov 21, 8:41 PM said:

As a liberal I am ashamed not only with the scientists actions, but also with the response of the left.

I always believed in the high road. I believed that being a liberal means we are morally above Bush’s power hungry mob. That the Karl Rove’s of the world – to whom the end justify any mean are a right wing phenomenon.

The closing of the ranks by my fellow liberals in defense by of these despicable acts and their perpetrators is staggering.

These scientists are our own Karl Roves: Distort the truth, foreclose the opposition, control access to data and media, covertly undermine the descents, stonewall any scrutiny, break the law. Our own guys are doing every bit of the things we detested for so long.

And what are we doing? We excuse them. “Taken out of context”, “They are just human”. “Where is the smoking gun?”

Guys – we must be better than that. Maintain our moral ground. Don’t excuse these actions. Expel the offenders from our ranks.

We are better than this.


Some of them have integrity though.

link in comments 70% down the page.

[free-man]

I hope the mainstream peeps wake up. I had newstalk on early this morning at the silly woman guest was bleating on about climate change and how we need to reduce emmisions to stop it. Silly woman and dumbass presenter listening to her.

And what was her reaction when you called in to correct her?

[rhonda15]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCHi44Iv-g0&videos="]YouTube- 'Global Warming bogus, Ice Age approaching'[/ame]