More emails released

[RCNYILWX]

Good morning all. As a qualifier, I do consider myself skeptical of the degree humans are causing warming/changing climate ( I do not, however, think we have zero influence on climate) and that global climate is not as sensitive to C02 increase as we have been led to believe by many climate scientists and the science is far less certain than we have been led to believe. Not the science of the greenhouse effect, which is obviously not in question. I will accept any criticism that I get for that statement, because I know I will. But plenty of the pro-consensus view posters on this thread have made very valuable weather related posts on other threads that I have been able to learn from in terms of the degree of scientific knowledge, so I am not attacking any of you guys. Anyway, a lot of the talk on this thread has been about how the emails are taken out of context and do not show anything disturbing about the machinations behind the scenes of the consensus view on CAGW. Also, that paleoclimatology has achieved a high degree of certainty and validity in terms of its relation to current temperature trends and it's peer reviewed. Jeff Condon (Id) at noconsensus has made a post today that I believe refutes a lot of the talk about paleoclimatology in general and also provides full email threads to provide full context. Here's the link: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/456-5/. Steve McIntyre, who I know a lot of you love to hate, has another post: Behind Closed Doors, Perpetuating Rubbish here: http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/behind-closed-doors-perpetuating-rubbish/. These posts also show that many top climate scientists involved with CRU and the IPCC process have doubts and serious problems with some of the studies being published to support "the cause." But we don't hear that in the official message. And then going back to the talk of suppressing inconvenient views to the consensus from getting out in IPCC literature, this post by Roger Pielke Jr.: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/foia2011-on-shameful-paper.html. There's many more that I think cast doubt on assertions that this all "nothing to see here, move along", but to keep it short, I'll leave it as these links. I am interested in reading some non-attack type, reasonable responses to these posts, so if any of you do, such as skier, frivolous, rusty, dabize, etc, I'd appreciate it. Thanks guys. And here's to respecting the views of all posters on this thread and not resorting to name calling and outright dismissal of arguments, on both sides.

[Srain]

Thanks guys. And here's to respecting the views of all posters on this thread and not resorting to name calling and outright dismissal of arguments, on both sides.

We are doing our best to make these discussion just that.

[easternsnowman]

You are all but saying the scientists are conspiring to delude the public about climate change ( as does the entire e-mail controversy ). Why don't you just come out and say it? You're a conspiracy theorist which you find apropos to your narrow minded view of how science should be conducted. You admit that you feel the scientists have a non-scientific agenda. You don't know of the methodologies and techniques these scientists use to do their research, but through the filter of your own limited knowledge and confirmation bias you see a conspiracy to defraud the public. A little ignorant knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the hands of ideologues such as yourself.

They do have an agenda, it is called socialism. They wish to limit our productive output and have the government tell us how to live think,eat and breathe! Remember over 80& of these so called scientists are liberal democrats. How many are conservative dems or republicans?

[LocoAko]

There entire life goal is proving a pre-determined outcome. They aren't climate scientists.. They are climate change proving scientists.

Not much money being generated in forecasting.

Google weather funding.

Thanks for playing - try again.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money.ars

[dabize]

They do have an agenda, it is called socialism. They wish to limit our productive output and have the government tell us how to live think,eat and breathe! Remember over 80& of these so called scientists are liberal democrats. How many are conservative dems or republicans?

We do crystalline, resublimated stupidity better than any other country............

[LocoAko]

They do have an agenda, it is called socialism. They wish to limit our productive output and have the government tell us how to live think,eat and breathe! Remember over 80& of these so called scientists are liberal democrats. How many are conservative dems or republicans?

Seriously?

[RCNYILWX]

Thanks for playing - try again.

http://arstechnica.c...r-the-money.ars

It was too broad to call all pro-CAGW scientists socialists, but the point about them being overwhelmingly liberal is a fair one. Polls have been done that back that up. Whether that has biased their conduct of science is in the eye of the beholder, but one cannot argue that lots of taxpayer dollars have been poured into all aspects of the green agenda (obvious counter will be how bout them oil companies). For example, a good deal of the 2009 stimulus money went toward DOE supplied guaranteed loans for green tech/energy companies, like Solyndra, which have already gone bankrupt, or are on the verge of going belly up. While individual climate scientists may not have been enriched by the government funding for climate research, there has been a political push from countries around the world to go in a desired policy direction, so I think it would completely understandable and human nature if some scientists feel some pressure from that push, and some of the emails circulating do show that.

[LocoAko]

It was too broad to call all pro-CAGW scientists socialists, but the point about them being overwhelmingly liberal is a fair one. Polls have been done that back that up. Whether that has biased their conduct of science is in the eye of the beholder, but one cannot argue that lots of taxpayer dollars have been poured into all aspects of the green agenda (obvious counter will be how bout them oil companies). For example, a good deal of the 2009 stimulus money went toward DOE supplied guaranteed loans for green tech/energy companies, like Solyndra, which have already gone bankrupt, or are on the verge of going belly up. While individual climate scientists may not have been enriched by the government funding for climate research, there has been a political push from countries around the world to go in a desired policy direction, so I think it would completely understandable and human nature if some scientists feel some pressure from that push, and some of the emails circulating do show that.

I see what you're saying but I interpret it a completely different way. You don't find it suspicious that just about every country in the world agrees (politically, that is) with mainstream AGW beliefs except us? Why wouldn't they be pushing us? In my head it is our[/i] politics that are keeping us out of mainstream agreement rather than "everyone else" trying to "push" us....

And most scientists in every field are on the liberal side of the spectrum. I won't speculate on why (though I have my ideas) but I don't see why it is important. Scientists are people and they are not perfect, of course. And if you already point out the "obvious counter", how come you don't address it? There's plenty of political money on both sides of the argument.

[dabize]

It was too broad to call all pro-CAGW scientists socialists, but the point about them being overwhelmingly liberal is a fair one. Polls have been done that back that up. Whether that has biased their conduct of science is in the eye of the beholder, but one cannot argue that lots of taxpayer dollars have been poured into all aspects of the green agenda (obvious counter will be how bout them oil companies). For example, a good deal of the 2009 stimulus money went toward DOE supplied guaranteed loans for green tech/energy companies, like Solyndra, which have already gone bankrupt, or are on the verge of going belly up. While individual climate scientists may not have been enriched by the government funding for climate research, there has been a political push from countries around the world to go in a desired policy direction, so I think it would completely understandable and human nature if some scientists feel some pressure from that push, and some of the emails circulating do show that.

Prima facie evidence of judgment being led by the amygdala rather than the prefrontal cortex.

You know better (Met tag), you are educated, yet you do it anyway.

How you can make this argument after Bush II (and Obama's failure to prosecute them for it) is simply amazing.

God knows the Dems have their persistent idiocies (mostly to do with identity politics), but the right wing OWNS this crap.

This is pure projection. Your guys do this and the other side doesn't (they do their stupid differently).

Live with it.

[easternsnowman]

We do crystalline, resublimated stupidity better than any other country............

Socialist =loser+stupid!

[LocoAko]

Socialist =loser+stupid!

Hurry up and use your 3 remaining posts for today so the rest of us don't have to read your off-topic crap anymore - thanks!

[dabize]

I see what you're saying but I interpret it a completely different way. You don't find it suspicious that just about every country in the world agrees (politically, that is) with mainstream AGW beliefs except us? Why wouldn't they be pushing us? In my head it is our[/i] politics that are keeping us out of mainstream agreement rather than "everyone else" trying to "push" us....

And most scientists in every field are on the liberal side of the spectrum. I won't speculate on why (though I have my ideas) but I don't see why it is important. Scientists are people and they are not perfect, of course. And if you already point out the "obvious counter", how come you don't address it? There's plenty of political money on both sides of the argument.

Too charitable, IMHO.

Money is being spent by the wealthiest corporations on Earth on one side

There is precious little money on the other side, comparatively speaking.

And reality DOES have a liberal bias (at least in the USA of 1980-present).

The proof for my statements lies in an inspection of the actual science.

Furthermore, this kind of campaign has a very recent precedent - that of the cigarette companies.

[skierinvermont]

They do have an agenda, it is called socialism. They wish to limit our productive output and have the government tell us how to live think,eat and breathe! Remember over 80& of these so called scientists are liberal democrats. How many are conservative dems or republicans?

Socialist =loser+stupid!

Has this guy been banned yet?

[Jonger]

They do have an agenda, it is called socialism. They wish to limit our productive output and have the government tell us how to live think,eat and breathe! Remember over 80& of these so called scientists are liberal democrats. How many are conservative dems or republicans?

We have a WINNER!

What better way to control humans then to convince them that there successes still run the risk of failure.

[AtticaFanatica]

There was a shocking lack of stupidity in this forum for like a whole 3 days, nice to see it getting back to form.

[WeatherRusty]

They do have an agenda, it is called socialism. They wish to limit our productive output and have the government tell us how to live think,eat and breathe! Remember over 80& of these so called scientists are liberal democrats. How many are conservative dems or republicans?

Since you belief the motivation of scientists is to promote a political agenda, you conclude the science to be fraudulent? You doubt that equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 0.75C per watt of external forcing because you believe the scientists who have estimated that figure to have a socialist agenda? Ok, got it.

Again, it's all a big conspiracy. This is the common thread which the conservative mindset holds against the science. The envisioned political consequences of AGW are so reviled by conservatives that the science can not possibly be on the up and up.

To your question, would you as a conservative enter a field of study which potentially could seriously threaten your world view?

[dabize]

There was a shocking lack of stupidity in this forum for like a whole 3 days, nice to see it getting back to form.

I fear we are all guilty - troll and troll feeder alike

Mea maxima culpa

See how nobody has posted in another thread all day - just an example of our troll dollars at work.

[WeatherRusty]

We have a WINNER!

What better way to control humans then to convince them that there successes still run the risk of failure.

Can you say "unintended consequences"? Fossil fuels have provided a fabulous kick start to human prosperity. However, like most such seemingly inexpensive enriching commodities, there are hidden costs. There is no such thing as a free lunch. All actions have ramifications, both foreseen and unseen. Some positive, some negative. Some monetary, some to the very environment from which it came.

We want our cake and to be able to eat it too. Some of us are not willing to recognize the true cost of burning millions of years of stored energy in little more than one century.

[easternsnowman]

Since you belief the motivation of scientists is to promote a political agenda, you conclude the science to be fraudulent? You doubt that equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 0.75C per watt of external forcing because you believe the scientists who have estimated that figure to have a socialist agenda? Ok, got it.

Again, it's all a big conspiracy. This is the common thread which the conservative mindset holds against the science. The envisioned political consequences of AGW are so reviled by conservatives that the science can not possibly be on the up and up.

To your question, would you as a conservative enter a field of study which potentially could seriously threaten your world view?

I was until recently a democrat. I do believe their is warming going on, I just doubt how much is man made and the climate people do seem to make it sound like doomsday. Instead of limiting our energy independance and the nations productivity how come these experts don't come up with an alternative to negate the effects of the greenhouse gas.

[WeatherRusty]

I was until recently a democrat. I do believe their is warming going on, I just doubt how much is man made and the climate people do seem to make it sound like doomsday. Instead of limiting our energy independance and the nations productivity how come these experts don't come up with an alternative to negate the effects of the greenhouse gas.

First of all, if the global climate is to warm 3C, it will have risen 60% of the temperature change difference between the last full blown ice age climate of 20,000 years ago since the year ~1900. This could happen by the end of the current century, or less than 200 years. The difference between a climate like today and one 2C-3C warmer than today is very large, as was the transition out of the ice age.

Second of all, this problem is not isolated to the U.S. interests. It carries global consequences. The whole world community of nations MUST work together to limit emissions in order to bring about the required reduction in atmospheric and oceanic carbon load.

Climate scientists are not expert in energy production. Alternatives are the domain of a different strain of scientist.

[Jonger]

Can you say "unintended consequences"? Fossil fuels have provided a fabulous kick start to human prosperity. However, like most such seemingly inexpensive enriching commodities, there are hidden costs. There is no such thing as a free lunch. All actions have ramifications, both foreseen and unseen. Some positive, some negative. Some monetary, some to the very environment from which it came.

We want our cake and to be able to eat it too. Some of us are not willing to recognize the true cost of burning millions of years of stored energy in little more than one century.

Well when the oil runs out... and it will.... well before a new source of energy is found.. Your entire hypothisized scenerio will never come to fruition. We would be best off shutting off funding to AGW research and divert it to alternative energy research. Put away the ice core auger and get to work.

[Jonger]

First of all, if the global climate is to warm 3C, it will have risen 60% of the temperature change difference between the last full blown ice age climate of 20,000 years ago since the year ~1900. This could happen by the end of the current century, or less than 200 years. The difference between a climate like today and one 2C-3C warmer than today is very large, as was the transition out of the ice age.

Second of all, this problem is not isolated to the U.S. interests. It carries global consequences. The whole world community of nations MUST work together to limit emissions in order to bring about the required reduction in atmospheric and oceanic carbon load.

Climate scientists are not expert in energy production. Alternatives are the domain of a different strain of scientist.

How exactly do you know what the earths temp was 20,000 years accurately. I could say the entire planet was 20 degrees colder and you could never disprove it.

[skierinvermont]

Well when the oil runs out... and it will.... well before a new source of energy is found.. Your entire hypothisized scenerio will never come to fruition. We would be best off shutting off funding to AGW research and divert it to alternative energy research. Put away the ice core auger and get to work.

Right because the very limited funding provided to AGW research is preventing funding on alternative energy. I fail to see the trade off between the two.

[WeatherRusty]

Well when the oil runs out... and it will.... well before a new source of energy is found.. Your entire hypothisized scenerio will never come to fruition. We would be best off shutting off funding to AGW research and divert it to alternative energy research. Put away the ice core auger and get to work.

What is AGW research? It is nothing other than chemistry, geology, astrophysics, atmospheric research and data collection, oceanography, paleoclimatology and any other climate related research etc. etc.

We will have doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times by sometime near the middle of the current century and we won't stop there. One doubling of CO2 will likely raise global temps by some 2C - 4.5C, bring about the large climate shifts of a magnitude comparable to the climb out of the last ice age. The permanent northern polar cap would become seasonal in nature with likely huge atmospheric and oceanic circulation implications.

[WeatherRusty]

How exactly do you know what the earths temp was 20,000 years accurately. I could say the entire planet was 20 degrees colder and you could never disprove it.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. Learn a little paleoclimate science and then come back. Science is not so ignorant of the relatively recent past as you seem to believe.

[LocoAko]

How exactly do you know what the earths temp was 20,000 years accurately. I could say the entire planet was 20 degrees colder and you could never disprove it.

lol.

[tacoman25]

Right because the very limited funding provided to AGW research is preventing funding on alternative energy. I fail to see the trade off between the two.

What are you talking about? Funding is way more available for AGW research compared to many other areas of science.

[Jonger]

Right because the very limited funding provided to AGW research is preventing funding on alternative energy. I fail to see the trade off between the two.

So you say AGW research needs more funding?

[Jonger]

BTW, I'm aware of how they assume to know previous temps from the earth. The only problem is that we have no smoking gun to test from the ice that has melted. 15,000 years ago there was a mile thick of ice over half of the north American continent. I'm guessing that 95% of that melted before 1700AD. We basically have just a sliver of remaining ice. The south pole still contains 90% of the earths ice... and the temps there... well... have decreased.

[dabize]

What are you talking about? Funding is way more available for AGW research compared to many other areas of science.

Source??

News to me.....and I (as a scientist working in another field, competing for limited funds) would be prone to think stuff like this if there were any truth to it at all.