snowlover91

There are plenty who are in the climate field and have personally experienced the things I’ve discussed. Read Judith Curry as one example of a prominent climate scientist who has first hand accounts of various issues. You would also do well to read the various emails that have been released over the years. I’ve posted some prominent examples and there are plenty of others suggesting data manipulation and other ethically questionable tactics and approaches. Like I said previously there’s nothing more I can add to this topic. People make up their minds either as an AGW proponent or skeptic and it’s nearly impossible to change their minds no matter what data is presented. I have better things to do and enjoy in life than waste my time on a nearly dead forum debating people who won’t change their minds on the issue.

First of all, the climategate emails are publically accessible. That link I provided has the content of the email along with a domain with the original leaked email saved on it. You can go to numerous other websites and confirm that the email content is indeed real. The PDF simply points out key concerning emails and discusses the context of them. There are many concerning things contained within. Part of the problem today is when people are inclined to believe these “independent” reviews like you cited and blindly accepting them. I prefer to do my own research and make my own conclusions. If you do some digging you’ll see there are some serious problems with how those “independent” reviews were conducted. Having said that, let’s look at a few key emails to determine whether some serious issues were ongoing or not. “I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uninformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by “for” and “against” global warming proponents. However, if an “independent group” such as you guys at the Climatic Research Unit could make a statement as to whether the McIntyre and McKitrick effort is truly an “audit”, and whether they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue. If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished Climatic Research Unit Boys would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of control...” “Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!” “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on AR5 would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Department of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” “Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, stated: ‘The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.’” https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/#4e82f3021323 “A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleoclimatology ... work as supporting your work. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other results. Although these all show the “hockey stick” shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleoclimatology results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all.” Neville Nicholls, of the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre in Melbourne, Australia, asks Phil Jones: Do you expect to get a call from Congress? Jones replies: “I hope I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a United States Department of Energy grant, and have had this (with Tom Wigley) for the last 25 years.” The fact that Jones received these grant moneys from a foreign government department is not an issue; it is a normal and healthy part of scientific research. What is astounding is his hiding of the fact. It is standard scientific practice to acknowledge all sources of funding, however indirect. Phil Jones states, “There is an issue coming up in the IPCC. Every graph needs uncertainty bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether they are right or how they are used.” These are just a few examples. If you have no problem with any of these issues then it’s pointless to debate this further. Hiding the data, deleting emails, using uncertainty bars with no regard to their accuracy, taking money without declaring it publically, and manipulating the “independent” review and peer review process are all serious issues that we found out about only because of the leaked emails. How much more of this is going on that we have no clue about? Why are they so concerned with hiding the data rather than being transparent? Based on the content of the emails it’s obvious these men have a LARGE and extensive network they use to influence the outcome and perception of AGW. Instead of skimming the emails you might find it insightful to read them, do some digging and make your own conclusions rather than letting those reports you cited form the basis of your opinion. Having said that, I’m not going to engage in this discussion further as it simply is a waste of time for me to keep typing out responses here and I’d rather use my time in a much more beneficial manner.

Have you read the link I posted? Thoughts?

Correct, they don't define the scientific consensus on climate topics and that was never my point. My point was that academia and other things in place have made it incredibly difficult for anyone skeptical to be heard effectively silencing them. Others are afraid of the recourse they might experience if they speak up. If you want some great evidence of the fraud going on, please do some reading on this link. There are 180 pages of examples to go through but it's quite revealing. There are email exchanges detailing how data was tampered with, ignored, sent to specific people to make sure it wasn't questioned, concealed, opponents silenced, etc. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

Read what was posted. If you want to advance in one of these fields then research needs to agree with AGW theory or else you have no future in said field. That’s pretty easy to understand. I’m not saying it’s a coordinated effort or hoax. I’m saying the emphasis on AGW, “saving the planet”, and other similar ideals are widely perpetrated in both the media and academia. To that end the pressure is to conform to that standard and it’s quite easy for scientific research to succumb to a “group think” mentality when this type of emphasis is in place. Whether intentional or not the pressure pushes people that direction. I also have to disagree about climate scientists having nothing to gain. They have everything to gain. Their current job stability, funding, grants, opportunities to advance in their field, etc. There are immense amounts of money used for “green” projects in countries all over the world, we are talking billions and billions of dollars. Governments fund various projects, grants, research fields, etc dealing with climate change and other areas. It’s ludicrous to say these people have nothing to gain. Just in the US alone here are some numbers concerning tax payer money going to climate change related uses. https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/ “From FY 1993 to FY 2014, government reports show that annual spending on “climate science” grew from $1.31 billion to $2.66 billon, for a total of $42.49 billion. Of this total, $0.64 billion came from the stimulus bill. Annual expenditures in this category over the period increased over 200%. During the same period, “other” climate-related expenditures (including tax credits) grew from $1.05 billion to $8.94 billion, for a total of $104.29 billion, with $25.5 billion coming from AARA. The increase in annual expenditures in this category was 850%. If we combine both categories, total expenditures for the period grew from $2.35 billion to $11.59 billion, for a total of $146.78 billion, with $26.14 billion coming from ARRA. The increase in total annual expenditures was 490%.”

Then why have Mann and others been attempting to silence critics or express a willingness to "redefine" what peer review is? What about people in the academic circle who were quickly ostracized as soon as they took a skeptical or more moderate position on AGW? Judith Curry is a person who has been around a long time and seen these issues first hand, here is what she noted... "Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc. How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)." Source

Since PIOMAS is unavailable due to the govt shutdown, here is the latest DMI volume. Antarctic ice loss is slowing down after a rapid drop. It appears the remaining ice is mainly high concentration ice so the loss should level out fairly soon.

So we shouldn't be concerned about whether it's ethical for scientists to intentionally try to hide the data from people who disagree with their conclusions, especially people like Michael Mann who is one of the prominent voices often quoted concerning AGW? I'm sure you realize there is more to heating our atmosphere than CO2. There are various areas of research and disagreement on the role of other factors like cloud cover, ocean current changes, solar influences that affect multiple areas in our atmosphere, changes in the sun, water vapor, etc. CO2 is just one of the many factors that play a part in the temperature changes in our world. I've been hearing the same AGW arguments for years too, same meme's, funny how that works. Guess we will be hearing the same 10 years from now - while life continues on.

What does conservative, breitbart or the market have to do with the topic of this thread? The topic is focused on climate manipulation of data/records to which my post was addressed. Both the skeptic and AGW side are guilty of manipulating the records at times; my point is simply that there have been some very concerning statements and emails from the AGW side which certainly gives plausibility to the idea of data tampering, manipulation and attempts to keep out scientific research that would discredit or undermine the AGW view of things.

The first quote is from an IPCC official stating that climate change is more about redistributing wealth than it is environmental policy. That's pretty concerning because climate change research should NOT be concerned with how money shifts from one group to another. People act like these climate scientists and other people endorsing AGW don't get any government funding or grant money to research the "problem" of AGW and yet there are BILLIONS of dollars going into these. Do some research here, it exists on both sides. So it's ethical to offer up scenarios that won't happen or are statistically near impossible to get people to do something? This topic isn't about immigration or terrorism it's about climate change so stay on topic. I don't see how lying to people is an ethical or correct way to go about getting people on board with climate change. If anything when these scary scenarios fail to occur it causes a public trust issue and causes greater harm to the credibility of these people making the claims. So you have no problem with some leaders in the AGW field like Michael Mann and Phil Jones saying they need to redefine what peer review is to keep out the scientific study of those whom they disagree with? Really? So science is essentially just group think and if you disagree with it you're automatically wrong and should be censored and not heard? Sorry but the way it should be is if someone publishes something that is completely non-sense then it will be quite clear and you shouldn't have to change what peer review literature is. The quote regarding the field of dendroclimatology was saying that there was nothing wrong with the math but the paper should be rejected because it would cause serious issues for the AGW agenda by calling it into question. If you care to do some more digging you can read plenty of email exchanges to get the full context. I have read through hundreds of them and there are some very concerning things in them that were revealed plus you can get the full context that way. There is plenty of additional research you can do if you care to see some of the issues that are out there in the field of climate change, both on the skeptic and AGW side.

Well some prominent AGW proponents have publicly admitted reasons why. IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...” The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” And these golden nuggets. A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow---even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is." A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.” When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: "A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue." Source

RGEM is a high resolution version of the CMC, similar to how you have the 32km NAM, 12km and 3km versions. The RGEM ensembles go out to 72 hours and can be useful for trends in track but that's about it. Inside 48 they are excellent.

Of course you wouldn’t. Here’s the summary. Views that are contrary to AGW were intentionally suppressed and AGW is a means to redistribute wealth.

Certainly not but science is a field where theories and our understanding of things is constantly evolving. There is plenty of scientific research which supports the opinion I have and there is scientific research supportive of other views as well. Scientific consensus is a great thing but can also be a big problem that holds back scientific advancement as well. For example, there have been cases where the scientific community held a consensus view and peer reviewed literature rejected other theories because they didn't agree with the consensus and yet the "minority" view ended up finally having a breakthrough that completely upset the "consensus" view. Do some research on this and you'll see what I mean. Skepticism and asking tough questions is a part of the process and differing views based upon scientific research should not automatically be discredited or rejected simply because they don't fit the "consensus" view; they are to be evaluated and examined. You would do well to study the agenda behind AGW btw, it's quite interesting to note and is worth keeping in mind. Here's a quote to get you started by Stephen Schneider “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Or how about this one? “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].” How about this? “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow---even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is." Or this? "I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.” " IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth..." More info here. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/#4cecd56f68a3

The only problem with this assumption is that it assumes there are absolutely no other feedback created by this warming which may offset it in a positive/negative way as well. There have been various papers written dealing with just this and it's not quite as cut and dry as it would seem. Water vapor, cloud cover, changes in ocean currents, etc. all create complex interactions that can lower or increase the effect of CO2 doubling.