NASA accused of 'Climategate' stalling FOIA response long overdue

The man battling NASA for access to potential "Climategate" e-mails says the agency is still withholding documents and that NASA may be trying to stall long enough to avoid hurting an upcoming Senate debate on global warming.

Nearly three years after his first Freedom of Information Act request, Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said he will file a lawsuit Thursday to force NASA to turn over documents the agency has promised but has never delivered.

Mr. Horner said he expects the documents, primarily e-mails from scientists involved with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), will be yet another blow to the science behind global warming, which has come under fire in recent months after e-mails from a leading British research unit indicated scientists had manipulated some data.

"What we've got is the third leg of the stool here, which is the U.S.-led, NASA-run effort to defend what proved to be indefensible, and that was a manufactured record of aberrant warming," Mr. Horner said. "We assume that we will also see through these e-mails, as we've seen through others, organized efforts to subvert transparency laws like FOIA."

He said with a global warming debate looming in the Senate, NASA may be trying to avoid having embarrassing documents come out at this time, but eventually the e-mails will be released.

"They know time is our friend," said Mr. Horner, author of "Power Grab: How Obama's Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America."
...

www.washingtontimes.com...

There have been people claiming that it was impossible for so many greedy, powermongering AGW corporate agencies from around the world to be in on the ClimateGate scandal, but the facts say the contrary.

Remember that NASA's director happens to be Hansen, an AGW activist who has even incited violence, and revolts unless the U.S. government does what he, and other AGWers wanted.

Here's hoping that NASA don't find some way (or a good excuse) to edit/omit these documents before Mr Horner gets them.

I wish him the best of luck.

Originally posted by Pixus
Here's hoping that NASA don't find some way (or a good excuse) to edit/omit these documents before Mr Horner gets them.

I wish him the best of luck.

Same here. There was a report some months back that some Senators had also found evidence that NASA was part of the ClimateGate scandal and they were calling for a Senate hearing but I haven't heard, or read anything else about it.

Anyway, i found some more information about this article.

In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.

On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.

The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.

As you examine the email excerpts below, as well as those which I will discuss in the upcoming three parts of this series, bear in mind that the contents of these emails were intended to prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity. NASA’s activist scientists leave no doubt in their emails that this was indeed their objective. Also, please note that these documents were responsive to a specific FOIA request from two years ago. Recent developments — combined with admissions contained in these documents — beg further requests, which have both been already filed and with more forthcoming.

Furthermore, on January 29, 2010, CEI filed our appeal of NASA continuing to improperly withhold other documents responsive to our FOIA requests. In this appeal we informed NASA that if they do not comply by the twentieth day, as required by law, we shall exercise our appellate rights in court immediately.

________________________________

Under Dr. James Hansen, director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA shepherds a continuing public campaign claiming clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — climate change induced by human beings. The documents released via the FOIA request, however, contain admissions of data unreliability that are staggering, particularly in light of NASAs claims to know temperatures and anomalies within hundredths of a degree, and the alarm they helped raise over a mere one degree of claimed warming over more than an entire century.

Dr. Reto Ruedy, a Hansen colleague at GISS, complains in his August 3, 2007, email to his co-worker at GISS and RealClimate blogger Gavin Schmidt:

[The United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date (at this point the (sic) seem to end in 2002).

This lapse led to wild differences in data claimed to be from the same ground stations by USHCN and the Global Climate Network (GHCN). NASA later trumpeted the “adjustments” they made to this data (upward only, of course) in extremely minor amounts — adjustments they are now seen admitting are well within any uncertainty, a fact that received significantly less emphasis in their public media campaign claiming anomalous, man-made warming.

GISS’s Ruedy then wrote:

[NASA’s] assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data … may not have been correct. … Indeed, in 490 of the 1057 stations the USHCN data were up to 1C colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data were the same, and in the remaining 490 stations the USHCN data were warmer than the GHCN data.

Ruedy claimed this introduced an estimated warming into the record of 0.1 deg C. Ruedy then described an alternate way of manipulating the temperature data, “ more careful method” they might consider using, instead.

pajamasmedia.com...

The second page even sheds more light on this issue.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Nearly three years after his first Freedom of Information Act request, Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute

The Competitive Enterprise Institute?

Let's see what wikipedia has to say about them:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit libertarian think tank
...
Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation.

Yeah a so-called "libertarian think tank" funded by some of the largest corporations in the world. I'm sure they're fighting to represent the freedoms and best interests of YOU, the little guy, and nothing else.

CEI is an outspoken anthropogenic climate change denialist and an opponent of government action that would require limits on greenhouse gas emissions. It favors free-market environmentalism, claiming that market institutions are more effective in protecting the environment than is government.

Free-market environmentalism - are you kidding???

So basically, leave it to companies like BP to take care of the environment for us! How's that been working out lately?


ATS - I know many of you are skeptical of man-made climate change and so eager to attack it at every opportunity - but stop listening to all the horsecrap coming from the other extreme of the equation OK?

These corporatists are only interested in protecting their own agenda, and the OP of this thread has a PROVEN posting history of pushing their politics for them - with no regard for objectivity or the actual truth. This has NOTHING to do with fighting for your freedom or exposing underlying scams. These are simply the same people who seek to derail any talk of environmental legislation or concern ONLY because it affects THEIR bottom line ($$$$) - NOT YOURS.

This is why Climategate was a joke. It was a joke because it was initiated and exploited completely out of context by people like this, people who are apparently still desperately trying to derail the conversation any way they can.

There have been two separate inquiries issued so far which cleared the accused scientists of any wrong doing. Read them yourselves here:

Science and Technology Committee - Eighth Report: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit.

In the news:

"Climategate" Researchers Largely Cleared

Scientists cleared of malpractice in UEA's hacked emails inquiry


I mean I know it's not going to convince a lot of you - but seriously, at least have enough sense to realize there's more than one agenda at play here. So stop using your blind outrage for one to fall right into the lap of the other.


"Free market environmentalism"

reply to post by mc_squared


Let me get this straight... First of all you want to claim that the British government which has been an ardent proponent of a One World Government to fight Anthropogenic Climate Change, and even Climate Change, among other things cleared their own scientists of the scam that fellow scientists admit exists, not to mention the fact that Jones one of the scam artists considered suicide (the leaked emails must have been a lie heh?...) and anyone with any ounce of intelligence can see that a government which is an ardent proponent for a One World Government to fight Climate Change can't "clear" corrupt scientists who are ardent proponents of implementing more draconian laws to "fight Anthropogenic Climate Change, and Climate Change in general"yet you want to claim the contrary?...

Not only that, but one of the main AGW websites which is given forth by people like you as evidence happens to be the same website where Jones, Mann, and others Climategate scam artists are directors, and the same website which is linked directly to... Let's link wikipedia since you trust them on this issue...

Environmental Media Services
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search

Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues".[1] EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gores 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate,(2) and providing recommendations to journalists trying to locate experts knowledgeable on environmental topics. They also issue press releases related to environmental issues and provide an aggregation service that disseminates recent news on environmental topics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wow...let's see what else we can dig about this issue...

Since you trust wikipedia on the topic about Climate Change, let's see what they have done, and keep doing...

Is Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores in Scotland.

On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming hysteria around the world.

The connection? Oftentimes "inaccurate or deliberately misleading information" published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by unsuspecting readers.

In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia is a purely factual resource.

As the Scotsman reported on June 21, such an assumption carries risks (emphasis added):

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information before passing it off as their own work.

The group singled out online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows entries to be logged or updated by anyone and is not verified by researchers, as the main source of information. [...]

Eleanor Coner, the SPTC's information officer, said: "Children are very IT-savvy, but they are rubbish at researching. The sad fact is most children these days use libraries for computers, not the books. We accept that as a sign of the times, but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read.

"It's dangerous when the internet is littered with opinion and inaccurate information which could be taken as fact." [...]

Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, said there was a higher risk of inaccurate information on the internet than in books. He added: "We need to make sure youngsters don't take what they read online as fact."

Several further education institutions have already banned students from using the interactive encyclopaedia. At one college in Vermont in the US, a history professor found several students repeated the same error in exam papers. On discovering the information came from Wikipedia, the college outlawed its future use.
...

newsbusters.org...

Shall we look for more about the so unbiased view of wikipedia's editors about Climate Change?....

Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

Written by James Delingpole, Telegraph | 22 December 2009

If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely dont use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists

Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.

Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedias articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the worlds most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
...

www.climatechangefraud.com...

So let's make it clear... you want to believe a corrupt government that wants to implement a One World Government by any means, corrupt scientists who are being funded by Al Gore and other AGW alarmists, and you want to believe wikipedia when it is a known fact that it's editors are biased in favor of AGW and write lies, and disinformation about Climate Change?....

Hummm......

[edit on 31-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Let's dig a bit more into wikipedia's bias in favor of AGW, and the lies, and disinformation they keep writing about Climate change in general...

Articles Tagged "Wikipedia"
Sorted by: Date Posted | Views
view the latest news articles
Keith Briffa pulled from Wikipedia? Updated with comments by Luboš Motl


Hello Everyone,

I just tried to find University of East Anglia researcher Keith Briffa on Wikipedia, and he was no where to be found! The following cached page was available through Yahoo: (withdrawn/not found)

74.6.146.127.../wiki/Keith_R._Briffa&w=keith+briffa&d=FViX B-_EUdEK&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=JqExiGPkjjNw4VxHijBlfw--

It sugests that he must have been removed because of his association with ClimateGate. Apparently Wikipedia does not want to make it easy to research the principle players in this scandal and learn the details of their involvement.

It is a scandal in itself when a supposedly neutral reference is so deliberately obstructive and biased.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD
Corbett, Oregon USA
..........
Put 'Global Warming' into Google, let alone Wikipedia, and you will be offered, as 'settled fact', the 'full throttle' version of the theory of man-made global warming, as advanced by certain scientists and green groups. And you will find almost no references to any of the sceptical scientists, or philosophical critiques of the theory.

Martin Cohen, a writer on philosophy and science, thought this was odd and conducted an experiment to see what would happen if references to some of the 'other side' of the Global Warming debate were introduced.

What he found out is recorded here.His conclusion is that it is impossible to place on Wikipedia, for the record, 'other views', or 'dissenting voices' even those including, as they certainly do, many distinguished scientists, professors and IPCC authors.

After his investigation, Cohen came to see Wikipedia not even pretending to be neutral, but rather content to be dangerous propaganda delivered by anonymous non-entities. This was a point he put to Jimmy Wales, WIkipedias nominal supervisor. But Wales was having none of it, instead saying "There exists a long line of people who, when their extremist agenda is not accepted into Wikipedia, accuse the community of bias."

Click source link to read FULL report by Martin Cohen
.....

climaterealists.com...


BTW, some people have asked if wikipedia can be trusted, and this is the best response voted by people...

Can Wikipedia be trusted as an objective source of information?
network.nationalpost.com...…

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
It isn't a question of whether or not *Wikipedia* can be trusted; each article and topic has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because a different set of people authors and controls each article. There's precious little consistency, and few (if any) site-wide standards. Instead, Wikipedia tries to apply "reliable source" guidelines, whereby any controversial point in an article is supposed to be referenced to an external website or publication - but even if followed strictly, these sourcing guidelines don't prevent things like undue emphasis, ideological bias, insertion of lunatic-fringe theories, and even outright falsehoods.

The counter-argument is that *no* publication, web-based or on paper, should be trusted as an objective source of information. But traditional encyclopedias (as a general rule) are more consistent, have better fact-checking, and strict professional editorial standards. Meanwhile, it can be said that Wikipedia is improving in some areas, but its getting worse in others. For example, it can usually be trusted on subjects related to pop culture, such as TV and music. But on things like advanced philosophy, biography, late-20th century history, and political ideology, it really cant - and even thats too much of a generalization.

The short answer, therefore, is "no" - but if you know enough about Wikipedia to realize that the article youre reading just might be controlled by a small group of biased (or even malicious) editors, you can usually at least get a general idea of what any given article is about, and then hopefully find better sources elsewhere if necessary.

I should add that in the link you provided, the evidence that Wikipedia editors were biased in favor of anthropogenic climate change is even more biased than the Wikipedia editors themselves, to the point of being flat-out wrong. Of course, you *expect* bloggers to be biased, whereas you at least hope that a website calling itself a "neutral" "encyclopedia" will not be.

answers.yahoo.com...

But hey keep believing wikipedia, the most biased source of information about Climate Change.....

No I use wikipedia because I can't be bothered spending more than 5 minutes debunking your hopelessly polemic and narrow minded threads.

You want to side-step the point by changing the subject onto the merits of wikipedia, fine - go ahead and get it straight from the horse's mouth then:

cei.org...

There's plenty of original material over there to pick and choose from.


So like I said, these are the same people behind all the distorted denialist propaganda you then come trumpeting onto ATS like it's supposed to be any more trustworthy than the "official" story. It's a pathetic joke - which is why it carries absolutely no merit once the chips are down. The proof is in the pudding, and no alleged government white-washing is needed to verify what the slightest bit of lucid and objective analysis can uncover alone.

But of course you always try to polarize this whole issue like it's all about big government propaganda and nothing else. And just like the rest of the extremely brainwashed fundamentalist right-wingers around here you seem to have no concept of how big business is the other side of the EXACT SAME COIN.

Or maybe you do, and you're deliberately supporting their agenda for some reason, I don't know.

In either case - stupid is as stupid does.

Originally posted by mc_squared

Nearly three years after his first Freedom of Information Act request, Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute

The Competitive Enterprise Institute?

You're talking like we're trying to judge the validity of some report they put out with questionable, unverified data. That's called a Straw Man.

The issue here is that NASA is with holding data, meaning they're the ones putting out questionable reports using unchecked data.

Besides, these scientists promoting your theory have just as much stake in keeping everyone scared.

So what we have here is the cataclysmic failure of your straw man.

ATS - I know many of you are skeptical of man-made climate change and so eager to attack it at every opportunity - but stop listening to all the horsecrap coming from the other extreme of the equation OK?

Fine. But meanwhile the IPCC report is the bible of your theory, and Climategate showed your people doing devious things, least of all even admitting that they don't know themselves. Meanwhile, chapter after chapter and section after section of the report are proven to be erroneous and even made up.

All while even this worst case scenario report only shows something like .5'C temp increase over the past 100 years or whatever, and that was going by their largely debunked data sets.

And in the aftermath NASA is still breaking the law by with holding data, yet you're in here straw manning the issue for what reason??

Originally posted by mc_squared
This is why Climategate was a joke. It was a joke because it was initiated and exploited completely out of context by people like this,

How can you ignore all of these:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you could somehow explain those away maybe your statement could sound remotely rational.

Originally posted by mc_squared
But of course you always try to polarize this whole issue like it's all about big government propaganda and nothing else. And just like the rest of the extremely brainwashed fundamentalist right-wingers around here you seem to have no concept of how big business is the other side of the EXACT SAME COIN.

Ok, so now you admit that Big Business and Big Government are one in the same, but we're still supposed to believe in their global government agenda when even Big Business is in on it?? Please somehow make that make sense...

[edit on 31-5-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You're talking like we're trying to judge the validity of some report they put out with questionable, unverified data. That's called a Straw Man.

What straw man?

I'm bringing up the fact that the accusations made in the OP's link actually support and verify what the accused scientists have been saying in their defense the whole time. And anyone who isn't brainwashed by all the polemic propaganda can see this for themselves if they call the damn witch hunt off and take a look at the whole story for 5 minutes.

The scientists have long claimed their reluctance to cater to specific FOIA requests is because these requests are malicious and ultimately frivolous. They are coming from people and institutions who only seek them as deliberate tactics to derail their work, waste their time, and undermine mass quantities of proven research by embellishing minor errors or irrelevant, out of context soundbites ("hide the decline" ring a bell?).

Besides, the actual scientific data being requested is usually already freely available to anyone. NASA GISS info for example:

data.giss.nasa.gov...

So what do these people want with personal emails and the like? Again - when you look at the big picture, it all starts to add up.

Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Nasa's Goddard Institute who is also on the list of 17, said he had seen an increase in freedom of information act requests. "In my previous six years I dealt with one FoIA request. In the last three months, we have had to deal with I think eight," he said. "These FoIAs are fishing expeditions for potentially embarrassing content but they are not FoIA requests for scientific information."

Source: US Senate's top climate sceptic accused of waging 'McCarthyite witch-hunt'

So the way the Competitive Enterprise Institute fits into all this is incredibly relevant - because their shady corporate connections and ludicrous political motivations completely fit into the scientists side of the story. It would be one thing if this was some truly independent, integrity driven watchdog organization, but clearly it is not. So this is only a straw man argument in the minds of those who want to blindly pretend these connections don't exist.

On top of that the only thing all the Climategate nonsense accomplished was to further this version of the truth. All those "devious things" like hiding the decline or keeping bad papers out of IPCC reports or Trenberth's inability to account for the lack of warming have been thoroughly debunked.

The only potentially legitimate gripe that came out of those emails was the fact that the scientists were indeed avoiding FOIA requests. This however would be a much more powerful revelation if any of these requests came from people who's actions and blatant agendas didn't simply reinforce what the scientists were claiming all along. Look at how many times Steve Mcintyre's name is mentioned in those emails. Here is climatologist Ben Stanter's personal account on his dealings with Mcintyre:

Ten days after the online publication of our International Journal of Climatology paper, Mr. Steven McIntyre, who runs the “ClimateAudit” blog, requested all of the climate model data we had used in our research. I replied that Mr. McIntyre was welcome to “audit” our calculations, and that all of the primary model data we had employed were archived at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and freely available to any researcher. Over 3,400 scientists around the world currently analyze climate model output from this open database.

My response was insufficient for Mr. McIntyre. He submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for climate model data – not for the freely available raw data, but for the results from intermediate calculations I had performed with the raw data. One FOIA request also asked for two years of my email correspondence related to these climate model data sets.
...
The punch-line of this story is that Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests were completely unnecessary. In my opinion, they were frivolous. Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the information necessary to check our calculations and our findings.

When I invited Mr. McIntyre to “audit” our entire study, including the intermediate calculations, and told him that all the data necessary to perform such an “audit” were freely available, he expressed moral outrage on his blog. I began to receive threatening emails. Complaints about my “stonewalling” behavior were sent to my superiors at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and at the U.S. Department of Energy.

So when you add up all the evidence it points more and more to the scientists' story checking out. Meanwhile the "skeptics" claims completely fall apart. This had nothing to do with unbiased groups checking up on scientific integrity. It was all a pre-calculated move to deliberately harass people on the job and then cry "stonewalling" when the scientists inevitably had enough with these stupid games. And this is EXACTLY what the climategate emails showed if you put them in guess what - their proper CONTEXT.

But unfortunately a great deal of the general public cares little for context or rationalization - they just want soundbites and over-sensationalized bullsh**. And this is why climategate is a total non-issue amongst the more well informed and yet considered a complete scandal amongst the tabloid reading peanut gallery of ATS and beyond.

Fine. But meanwhile the IPCC report is the bible of your theory

No, the fundamental science is the bible of my theory. 99% of the "theory" of Anthropogenic Global Warming can be established without any involvement from the IPCC. Two thirds of that can be done on the chalkboard and in the laboratory. The other 33% is not denied by anyone save for the borderline insane. We KNOW the greenhouse effect is real. We KNOW CO2 is an important greenhouse gas. And we've KNOWN it is accumulating in the atmosphere due to our bad habits long before the IPCC ever existed.

The supposedly "controversial" data coming in now is only verifying exactly what the unbiased fundamental science said would happen all along. Where the IPCC comes in is mainly sorting out just how bad it will all be. But regardless, you want to talk actual science - nothing would make me happier. This is my expertise, this is where it becomes easily apparent who's really manipulating data, and this is where feable skeptic/denier arguments come to die - so please be my guest.

Ok, so now you admit that Big Business and Big Government are one in the same, but we're still supposed to believe in their global government agenda when even Big Business is in on it?? Please somehow make that make sense...

Because big business and big government are not one and the same, they are two different sides of the same coin. Meaning they are two opposing ideologies that produce the same result. So trying to tear down one at the beckoning cry of the other will still get you nowhere.

And that's exactly where a lot of conspiracy theorists in particular seriously have their own heads up their *** with this whole issue.

First of all - show me where I said that I believe in some big government agenda. You can't. But this is the automatic assumption everyone who's so convinced global warming is fake fatally makes about anyone who believes it's real. Look around at the posts on ATS: everyday someone's having a big laugh at all the "sheep" supposedly brainwashed by Al Gore, as if Al Gore actually invented global warming or something lol. Meanwhile this ridiculous Pavlovian response speaks volumes about how much people around here have been conditioned to think this way by the denier propaganda being put out there by big business.

I'll give you a great example: this thread on the Copenhagen protests back in December.

Look at the way all the ATS members commenting are at first all on board with the protest and cheering on the demonstrators. Eventually however (page 8 or so) it starts to become apparent that these protesters in fact support global warming. So what are they protesting??? It's like all the ATS members heads begin to collectively explode at that point.

Again, the fact that their brains can't process this simple information clearly shows how much they've been brainwashed themselves.

Because what those protesters are protesting is the point that Global Warming is a very real and very serious problem - and they don't want this problem being hijacked by big government, big business, or any shady agendas for that matter.

So you ever consider THAT possibility? That the problem of global warming is real, but the politics of global warming are a scam?

I, as an AGW believer, have said many times around here I think Cap & Trade is farce. I think it's a farce because it's mostly just another example of big government and big business getting in bed together to put their profiteering priorities first. I have also pointed out how some of the supposedly "lying" scientists like James Hansen also think it's a farce.

So does that mean global warming itself is a farce? Of course not - and yet so many of you are apparently completely incapable of making this distinction.

You are incapable of making this distinction because you have been conditioned by all the big business denier propaganda to be incapable of making this distinction.

The fact is Global Warming is a very real problem that the left vs. right, big government vs. big business forces are fighting over trying to decide how to deal with. Basically they're fighting over what's left of the pie and how to divvy it up. Some have agreed on compromises like Cap & Trade but others like Big Oil lose out big time any way you slice it so they've just resorted to deny deny deny.

But the point is blindly supporting either one of these agendas against the other is equally stupid. And throwing such a potentially serious baby like Global Warming out with the rest of the dirty bathwater is downright idiotic. So you need to learn to see through ALL the bullsh** instead of just one side of the bullsh**.

Beyond that there are many areas where we would actually be very much on the same page if you guys would just figure this part out.


...
So any of this sounding "remotely rational" yet?

reply to post by mc_squared


Damn, and people think my ego is too big.

Anyways before I respond I wanted to make you aware of my response to you in another thread I'd like you to respond to:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mc_squared

Fine. But meanwhile the IPCC report is the bible of your theory

No, the fundamental science is the bible of my theory. 99% of the "theory" of Anthropogenic Global Warming can be established without any involvement from the IPCC. Two thirds of that can be done on the chalkboard and in the laboratory. The other 33% is not denied by anyone save for the borderline insane.

What exactly do you mean? Oh, that humans have CAUSED the perceived .5'c rise in temps the past 100 years?

Please do chalk that up on the chalk board...

Be sure to include a "tolerance" percentage of +/- potential error. You'll need a second chalkboard just to do a listing of all the flaws in temperature measurements past and present.

Where the IPCC comes in is mainly sorting out just how bad it will all be.

Right! And they've overstated their case, which is an ongoing drippingly notorious trend in environmentalist rhetoric.

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. “Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?” the paper asked. The paper’s investigation also couldn’t find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, “how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?” The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC’s Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was “speculation” lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.
...
AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as “peer-reveiwed” science. The Times said the assertion actually “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The “research” was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested “up to 40 percent” of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.
...
RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they’ve often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can’t be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D’Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers’ anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?
...
ReefGate – Let’s not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers’ errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.
climategate.tv...

Damn, yo! Why the need to overstate the case if the threat is clear and present?

And even note how key stations were omitted in several of those cases which then lead to an increase of about .5'C. How is that an accident?

But regardless, you want to talk actual science - nothing would make me happier. This is my expertise, this is where it becomes easily apparent who's really manipulating data, and this is where feable skeptic/denier arguments come to die - so please be my guest.

Ok, but first chalk up that chalk board you're already in debt to.

The scientists have long claimed their reluctance to cater to specific FOIA requests is because these requests are malicious and ultimately frivolous. They are coming from people and institutions who only seek them as deliberate tactics to derail their work, waste their time, and undermine mass quantities of proven research by embellishing minor errors or irrelevant, out of context soundbites ("hide the decline" ring a bell?).

Oh, you mean buzz phrases such as:

1212063122
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re (IPCC)? Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
1252164302
Please write all emails as though they will be made public.
1107454306
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.
1177890796
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.
1256735067
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,
1089318616
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
1051190249
I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
1252164302
We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia.
1255352257
Our observing system is inadequate.
1054736277
it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
1256747199
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
843161829
I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.
843161829
I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have
938018124
everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was (cooling trend) a problem and a potential distraction / detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show
938018124
I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.
1255523796
The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!
1120593115
I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Man I can see why they wouldn't want any more buzz words like that getting out again...



[edit on 1-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by mc_squared

So does that mean global warming itself is a farce? Of course not - and yet so many of you are apparently completely incapable of making this distinction.

Well Mr. Rationale... What is the point then to all of your 'you've all gotten in bed with the enemy' screamongering? So it's real, but both big government and big business are bad?

Are you screaming just to scream? Imagine you managed to convince everyone on ATS, or better yet earth, that AGW is real and super-duper dangerous... Then what would you say next? Perhaps you can rise above good 'ol Melatonin's pedigree and actually tell us what you would have the world do about the thing you believe in so much. I've begged him countless times and he never responds.

Ok, Cap'n Trade is bad even...

Then what do you propose to stop industrialization to 'stop' AGW? What ELSE is there to stopping it besides ending industrialization?

My response to you in the thread I pointed out above is relevant at this point.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Have you noticed that every time the AGW scaremongerers want to discuss this topic their main awnser is "everyone who opposes us is working for the oil industry"... Every freaken time..

First of all NOWHERE did i say that we must do what Christopher C. Horner thinks should be done...

Heck I have been one of the people bashing BP for what just happened...

What this article is showing is the deliberate attempts by NASA, and other ClimateGate scaremongerers to hide information, rig data etc...

Horner was not the only one to point this out...

Not too long ago I started a thread about a couple of Senators calling for a Senate hearing on NASA because they are not releasing information being requested and because emails show that NASA officials were in on the ClimateGate scandal...

BTW, don't give us that crap that "the doubters are stalling on minor errors'...minor errors my behind... You call a minor error for example that the AGW scam artists claimed the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, when the actual estimates put it at 2350, and a lot will happen in over 300 years that this could not occur by then?...

You call "minor errors" that the AGW scam artists have been hiding information, rigging the data, and discussed every legal and even illegal ways to keep people in the dark?...

I didn't write this article to give BP or any other company control over the environment... I have been an ardent proponent against such move, more so when the owners of these companies are part of the elites who control the world, and the governments, and who themselves also want a One World Government...and what better way to do this than to create another crisis?... This time an environmental crisis since their AGW hoax was shown to be a SCAM, and most people are not buying into it, hence they had to create another crisis so people will accept more draconian laws, and the elites one World Government...

I wrote this article because even NASA, because of Hansen, has been in on the ClimateGate scandal...

Senators Demand Explanation of NASA's Flawed Climate Data

Written by Jeremy A. Kaplan, FoxNews | 31 March 2010

Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have written a letter to NASA chief Charles Bolden demanding answers to questions surrounding newly uncovered irregularities in the space agency's climate data.

Not everyone is sipping the global warming Kool-Aid.

Concerns about the validity of NASAs climate research are being raised following revelations that the space agency admitted its data was less accurate than other weather trackers'. Disturbed by these reports, as well as the growing Climate-gate scandal that has left global-warming theorists reeling, Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have written a letter to space agency chief Charles Bolden demanding answers.

"The American people deserve to learn the truth about the data," Barrasso told FoxNews.com, stressing the risks of basing public policy on science that remains largely undecided.

FoxNews.com has obtained an advance copy of the letter -- the third that Barrasso, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Vitter, ranking member of the Committee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, have written in the months following the Climate-gate scandal.
...

www.climatechangefraud.com...



[edit on 2-6-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Here is the first thread that talks about NASA hiding information, and admitting their data is worse than the CRU analysis.

Here is an excerpt from that thread.

Climate Change: The agency that put Americans on the moon can't tell you the temperature that day. It isn't returning to the moon, but it will fix the brakes on your car. Two senators want to know what's going on.

The scandal unfolding at the nation's space agency is worse than the climate scandal, where researchers with Britain's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia manipulated, destroyed and doctored climate data so that it supported the preordained conclusion that climate change was an imminent threat caused by man.

If there is any doubt, just ask NASA.

E-mail messages obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded its own climate findings were inferior to the CRU analysis. In one e-mail from 2007, when a USA Today reporter asked if NASAs data "was more accurate," NASAs Dr. Reto Ruedy responded with an emphatic no.

"NASAs temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," writes Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Indeed, NASAs record shows it fudged data and cherry-picked data sources.

Concerned about the validity of NASA's climate research data, Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and David Vitter, R-La., sent a letter to space agency chief Charles Bolden demanding answers and inviting Bolden to testify to the Senate on the credibility of NASA's data.

"The American people deserve to learn the truth about the data," Barrasso told FoxNews.com. "We shouldn't make decisions affecting millions of American jobs when the data isn't credible."

Particularly when NASA is admitting it isn't.

Barrasso and Vitter refer to a Feb. 27 study by former NASA physicist Edward Long. Long concluded that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore's favorite scientist, Dr. James Hansen, had been modifying data, "lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those in the more recent past."
...............

link

[edit on 2-6-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Oh good...more he said/she said circular bickering - this'll settle the debate once and for all.

Regardless, thanks for highlighting a number of climategate soundbites that only help solidify my point.

So let's see, where to even start?

I already mentioned Steve Mcintyre's highly dubious role in all of this- basically alleging that he is a notorious sh** disturber only interested in disrupting the climatologists progress, rather than upholding any actual notions of scientific integrity. And since you want to play this defame game - there is plenty of evidence for denier Mcintyre's own transgressions with honesty, some of which you can read more about here.

That link is quite relevant to this discussion by the way, because a lot of these soundbites seem to be directly related to the heated, public spat between Mcintyre and climatologist Keith Briffa. So for example - I don't know what the scandalous significance of this blurb is supposed to even be:

1256747199
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

Because all it seems to do is confirm what I just said.


And then we have an interesting exchange between Briffa and the notorious hockey stick graph inventor, Michael Mann. That leads to this disconcerting announcement:

1177890796
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.

Hmmm...sounds pretty serious. Except it's a little puzzling why this dialogue is occuring between these two, since Mann is often cited as one of the alleged masterminds behind the IPCC "scam". So let's take a closer look -

FULL CONTEXT: eastangliaemails.com...

Mike
your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties. Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR.

So now what does this say about the compromise between "the science and the IPCC"? Apparently the concise, formulaic approach of the IPCC is preventing Briffa from invoking science to defend his beleaguered colleague. No! Instead he has to use the limited space to focus on those evil IPCC agendas like "the issues" and "uncertainties"!! *DUN DUN DUUUNNNNNNHHHH*

And it's also interesting how that particular nugget on your list of buzz-phrases is then immediately followed by an unrelated but convenient Mann response from another thread that makes it look like he's still talking about the IPCC:

1256735067
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations

Of course once more - if you look at the whole story, it paints an entirely different picture.

FULL CONTEXT: eastangliaemails.com...

This email exchange is from late Oct 2009, at the height of the Mcintyre-Briffa beef. Also suspiciously enough as Mcintyre starts to find himself on his heels - the CRU's database magically gets hacked the following month. Coincidence? Hey, I'm just thinking out loud - let's get back to the facts for now...

So naturally our friend Steve is once again at the center of this discussion:

McIntyre knows that the millennial temperature record is pretty robust, otherwise he
would produce his own series. Similarly the instrumental temperature is even more
robust, which he also knows.
Cheers
Phil

So what was that Mann buzz-phrase again? It's somewhere in here:

As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we
actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our
original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly
deniable accusations

Now tell me - who does it sound like Mann is talking about here? The climatologists, or Steve Mcintyre?? The answer by now should be "duh", but if Mcintyre's actually the one with no concern for the truth - then how does that explain this:

1252164302
We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia.

Yeah, now that does sound pretty incriminating doesn't it? Some climate scientist is clearly admitting to cherry-picking the data! Oh...but you know, just for kicks, let's see what the rest of the email says:

FULL CONTEXT: eastangliaemails.com...

There's other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre's group:
(1) We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia. Apparently this is old ground, but
do we need to address why we chose the Yamal record over the Polar Urals?

So the cherry-picking is merely Mcintyre's allegation, not the scientists admission - and we're back to the he said/she said again.

But CLEARLY the only conclusive cherry-picking here is the way this excerpt is presented to deliberately mislead anyone reading it.

...
So have I made my point yet? Or would you like to continue this "climategate meets reality" beatdown?

You still think the "out-of-context" thing is just some lame cop-out excuse?

What I find particularly ironic in all this is the way you guys consider it your bread and butter evidence that global warming is in fact a hoax. At the end of the day - you have no real scientific evidence that comes even close to refuting the consensus opinion. So instead you focus on all these claims that the consensus is flawed because all the scientists are lying, cheating, cherry-picking and manipulating the data.

Meanwhile all of your own "proof" comes from people who are blatantly doing the exact same thing!





[edit on 2-6-2010 by mc_squared]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Anyway, I'm gonna stop here for now and let all of the above sink in for you a little bit.

I'll be glad to come back and address the rest of your posts - especially the part about what we can do to actually fix all of this mess, but it'd be nice to know it isn't just gonna devolve into more pointless, contentious one-up-manship. Because I'm getting pretty tired of getting called brainwashed, and then written off as "arrogant" while I have to repeatedly go do everyone else's homework for them.

So maybe you wanna start corralling some of your own ego too and consider the fact that some of us AGW "fanatics" aren't as brainwashed as you all like to pretend. I've made this offer to numerous ATS members now - and the only one who's ever responded politely and up to the task was Redneck, but I haven't seen him ever since I debunked his Numbers Do Not Lie thread.

So you pick which one it's going to be, because otherwise let's quit wasting time - I have better things to do.

Originally posted by mc_squared
What I find particularly ironic in all this is the way you guys consider it your bread and butter evidence that global warming is in fact a hoax. At the end of the day - you have no real scientific evidence that comes even close to refuting the consensus opinion. So instead you focus on all these claims that the consensus is flawed because all the scientists are lying, cheating, cherry-picking and manipulating the data.

The 'scientific consensus' (if there could be such a thing) is based on the findings of the IPCC: FACT!

You conveniently skipped past that section of my post.

You CHERRY PICKED a handful of emails, which I will get around to addressing, but why should I when you refuse to answer my other questions?

You speak as if it's pointless to tell me anything, while posting a big hubbub that doesn't even address the big picture here.

Youre literally refusing to answer my questions, and then you claim victory?

In fact you've just completely skipped everything science and went straight to the he said she said, which you then appear to be complaining about me mentioning, while linking in more blogs addressing the he said she said with more he said she said.

In post 2 you wasted 4 paragraphs of total smearfest ad hominem attacks against anyone who doubts you. Desperate!!

And following the history of some of the other sorry links you've linked me why should I follow up on them and respond to them when you've been skipping key content I've tried to get you to discuss across multiple threads?

Answer the policy: tell us about your Zeitgeist global dictatorship! Answer the science: tell us how can a consensus be formed around IPCC after all of the 'gates' I pointed out!

But you can't answer my questions. You don't have a leg to stand on. There's nothing you can do about humans needing all of the derivatives of crude oil, even if you could manage to answer the energy part of it. Now that humans have solvents, plastics, oil paints, and the plethora of other products derived from oil there is nothing you can do to make us go back to the 1930's... without total de-industrialization. It'd be like proposing humans give up computers, which we need oil to make! I'm the biggest critic of the dangers of looming computer technologies and even I wouldn't think of or suggest that.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Wrong. The IPCC report is based on the scientific consensus. There are thousands of independent conclusions out there that support the consensus that have absolutely nothing to do with the IPCC.

That conclusion is just more denier propaganda that you've sucked right up.

YEAH and I cherry-picked a handful of emails?? I picked the ones which YOU highlighted FOR ME. I stopped there because I reached my 60000 character limit.

Anyway - I have my answer. You are just all about protecting your own ego like the rest of the brainwashed shlubs who've dug themselves into the deep hole of propaganda and ignorance you now refuse to acknowledge.

You obviously have no interest in the truth if you seriously still can't admit to the fact you might've been played by some of your own evidence.

I wasn't claiming victory - just calling like it is. Clearly you can't deal with that.

Good luck with the ignorance isn't bliss thing - you must be downright depressed.

reply to post by mc_squared


Actually I'm enjoying myself. I edited my post above there's some things you might have missed.

Answers the questions or you are admitting defeat.

This idea of a 'consensus' is a DISINFO sham, but if you feel otherwise here is the place to do it:
DISINFO: "Peer"-Reviewed Climate "Science" & "Scientific" Consensus

Originally posted by mc_squared
YEAH and I cherry-picked a handful of emails?? I picked the ones which YOU highlighted FOR ME. I stopped there because I reached my 60000 character limit.

You even cherry picked from the selection. You can't 'debunk' FOUR out of 20 and declare victory. I suggest you start a thread on that matter, because duking it out a couple at a time is pointless.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by mc_squared
Wrong. The IPCC report is based on the scientific consensus. There are thousands of independent conclusions out there that support the consensus that have absolutely nothing to do with the IPCC.

Where? What? Who?

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities
en.wikipedia.org...

If you have a gripe with that, don't bother:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The big shot science councils are run by tiny handfuls of people, while unusually representing tens of thousands of scientists, and they don't even poll their own members.