Global Warming Groups Claim Big Win In Battle Against " Climate Denialist" Approach In School

oh, in case you wanted more, someone has taken the time to go through about 5000 emails, 250 of which are noteworthy. i'll start you off with one:

So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many "facts" about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal. I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of "sound science" and Tyndall's reaction to it some thought recently. Mike [Hulme]

wattsupwiththat.com...

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I think they had some legit concerns about intellectual property as well as being under an FOIA attack, a very deliberate 24/7 attack to keep them tied up. I wonder how I would sound if someone read my private emails with co workers under that circumstance, I have a temper and I'm sarcastic... I wouldn't have come out smelling like roses either... but I'm also an honest person. Talk is talk. Ultimately the data was released and all were found innocent of wrong doing and the data is fine, nothing funny about it. So you can choose to let your reactions to private conversations with no knowledge of personality types, or you can look at the data and base your judgements on the actual science.

reply to post by Kali74

Ultimately the data was released

the model data has not been released as of yet, and criminal charges were brought up against them for avoiding FOIA requests, but they got out of it because it happened 6 months previous, and that is the statute of limitations. there is no real way to be under an "FOIA" attack because the data only has to be released once to satisfy all FOIA's. there was no concern over IP. if you read the emails you'll find they were attempting to HIDE behind IP laws to avoid releasing data.

so no, all is not fine and dandy. those "private emails" pertain to manipulating figures, admitting that the issue is largely political and their support guarantees grant money, and deleting incriminating data. there is no consensus on the issue, and AGW data has all been manipulated.

The earth has undergone several warm up periods over the millennia, long before industrialized man was to blame

Sigh, many of the warm periods were when the land masses were centered around the equator and there were no ice caps at the poles. Obviously those conditions made it hot with people.

The real question is why conservatives have a religious and completely unfounded belief that humans can't ever harm the environment.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


The data has been released, and no there were never criminal charges brought against anyone over this.

Following years of bitter dispute with climate change sceptics, the Climate Research Unit(CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich yesterday released most of the meteorological raw data it had used to put together a contested global land temperature dataset, CRUTEM. The release had been ordered last month by the UK Information Commissioner.

The CRU had previously rejected several freedom-of-information-act requests to make available raw data, which had been obtained from national meteorological services worldwide, to amateur researchers and climate sceptics, arguing that it had no permission to release the commercial datasets. ‘Gridded’ data derived from daily meteorological station data have been publicly available for many years, but sceptics, including Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, said they needed the raw data so that they could do their own re-analysis of global temperature trends.


In autumn 2009, unknown offenders hacked CRU computer servers and released more than a thousand emails – some containing aggressive language and alleged hints of data manipulation – exchanged over ten year or so between CRU director Phil Jones and a group of leading climate scientists. Jones and his co-workers were later cleared of all allegations of misconduct. Even so, ‘Climategate’, as critics were quick to dub the affair, prompted a severe confidence crisis from which the climate sciences have not yet fully recovered.

With yesterday’s release, raw data from 5,113 weather stations around the globe are now in the public domain. The only data missing are those from 10 stations in Poland. The Polish meteorological service, say CRU officials, refused permittence to have their data publicly released. But CRU reluctantly opted to release station data from Trinidad and Tobago against the Caribbean state’s express wish.

“We want to place beyond all doubt our determination to be open with our data and to comply with the ICO’s instruction,” Trevor Davies, UEA’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, said in a statement. “We remain concerned, however, that the forced release of material from a source which has explicitly refused to give permission for release could have some damaging consequences for the UK in international research collaborations.”

Source

I'm still curious as to why this manufactured scandal determines anything for you. There is data, other groups, other models besides the now defunct CRU. All of that data supports the AGW Theory, why doesn't that matter at all to you?

Looking at the headlines from the last six months of 'climate depot' the worlds mean temperature has staid the same for the last 16 years, the north and south pole ice has been increasing, various satellites have confirmed all the above, the longest winter in the northern hemisphere in living memory, plus another damn cold one three years in a row, cool summers, very low twister count in the USA, snow in places that really sees the stuff (like south africa) , makes me wonder.

reply to post by Kali74

i did misread one thing, i thought the statute of limitations was on "hiding" from FOIA requests.

from your source:

released most of the meteorological raw data

they released most of the raw data, but not the MODEL, which is what i said.

i see you blow off all the emails talking about manipulating data, "truncating" results, and that they themselves know it is more a political issue.

According to Schurer et al, “We find variations in solar output and explosive volcanism to be the main drivers of climate change from 1400-1900.” They also claim, “but for the first time we are also able to detect a significant contribution from greenhouse gas variations to the cold conditions during 1600-1800.” This claim is highly unlikely given that ice cores show CO2 levels only changed by less than 10 ppm from 1600-1800, and the effect of 10 ppm CO2 on the climate today remains undetectable even with modern instrumentation.

michael mann helped write this paper too.
wattsupwiththat.com... sent/

nothing to say on the hockey stick fraud?

climate science campaigns which, according to a Congressional Research Service report, have secured $68.4 billion in federal money between 2008 and 2012 to address man-induced climate change.

www.forbes.com...

follow the money, eh? 68.4 BILLION dollars for supporting anthropogenic global warming. wouldn't want to lose that bacon by turning up results that contradict what is wanted.

you wanna talk cherry picking and why the model data is so important?

But there were some problems with that graph and the research behind it. Some very big problems. One was that the Medieval Warm Period which occurred between about AD 800 and 1100 along with the Little Ice Age (not a true Ice Age) which occurred between about AD 1350-1850 somehow turned up missing. And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages.

www.forbes.com...

yes, let's use 12 trees that support our hypothesis, and ignore a larger amount of trees that completely disagree.

i question how much research you've actually done. much of it has probably been one sided. i don't question your sincerity, i also care very much for the planet, but i'd rather stop toxic emissions like sulfides and dumping waste into the waterways of the world than the foolishness that is AGW.

ETA: as for the "raw data" they released, the most valuable of it was manipulated and the originals destroyed.

Jones now admits that he “merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones. . . . Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

www.lifesitenews.com...

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

they released most of the raw data, but not the MODEL, which is what i said.

As far as I know, and doing a quick search for confirmation, the FOIA requests pertained only to the raw data.

From 1978 onwards, the Climatic Research Unit developed its gridded CRUTEM data set of land air temperature anomalies based on instrumental temperature records held by National Meteorological Organisations around the world, often under formal or informal confidentiality agreements that restricted use of this raw data to academic purposes. Beginning in 1991, Phil Jones of CRU discussed data with Warwick Hughes (later of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition), and from 2002 onwards had requests for raw data from Stephen McIntyre for raw data relating to the hockey stick graph as shown in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of 2001. At first Jones met their requests, but increasingly felt that he was inundated with requests that he could not meet due to time or confidentiality constraints, and in 2005 began refusing requests. In that year the new UK Freedom of Information Act came into effect, and climate researchers discussed the scope and implications of FOIA requests which they saw as disrupting the time available for their work, and inappropriate for private emails.

Wikipedia
I think they (Phil Jones et al) have some legitimate points. They were being asked to release data that they didn't have permission to as well as being asked to release private emails. I understand that science needs to be transparent, that doesn't have to mean that scientists have to bend over every time some shill doesn't like what a paper implicates.

i see you blow off all the emails talking about manipulating data, "truncating" results, and that they themselves know it is more a political issue.

According to Schurer et al, “We find variations in solar output and explosive volcanism to be the main drivers of climate change from 1400-1900.” They also claim, “but for the first time we are also able to detect a significant contribution from greenhouse gas variations to the cold conditions during 1600-1800.” This claim is highly unlikely given that ice cores show CO2 levels only changed by less than 10 ppm from 1600-1800, and the effect of 10 ppm CO2 on the climate today remains undetectable even with modern instrumentation.

I didn't blow it off but to be quite frank your points have been discussed ad nauseum, here and elsewhere on the internet, in policy hearings in the news blah blah blah... it's always the same thing, cherry picked, misinterpreted, misrepresented utter nonsense being vomited all over the place. For instance the paragraph you quoted above... I'm guessing people are reacting to...

“We find variations in solar output and explosive volcanism to be the main drivers of climate change from 1400-1900.”

The first and foremost thing people need to understand about climate change is that climate changes according to whatever the dominant forcing is. During the MWP and LIA which were localized to Europe, the dominant forcing was solar and volcanic. Mr. Watts' comment that:

They also claim, “but for the first time we are also able to detect a significant contribution from greenhouse gas variations to the cold conditions during 1600-1800.” This claim is highly unlikely given that ice cores show CO2 levels only changed by less than 10 ppm from 1600-1800, and the effect of 10 ppm CO2 on the climate today remains undetectable even with modern instrumentation.

...shows exactly why he shouldn't be commenting about climate change at all, he is either being very deceptive or he's a complete moron. Why? Because the key words there are greenhouse gas variations. GHG levels would be lower during a cold period because they are frozen thus contributing to the cooling effect by their decreased presence.

follow the money, eh? 68.4 BILLION dollars for supporting anthropogenic global warming. wouldn't want to lose that bacon by turning up results that contradict what is wanted.

You should probably look to see what that money covers and how little of it went toward research. And as far as the 'hockey stick' graph, there's nothing fraudulent about it. This paper explains why Mann was right and the criticisms were wrong. Finally... politics, yes it is a political issue because politics make it so we can pretend there's reason for debate, when in fact there isn't.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by phantomjack

 

I don't care tbh, but you tooted your own horn. Presumably as to appear in an authoritative position. So as a scientist, what's your issue with science being taught in school? Why is climate science wrong?

I am not against science being taught in school. Man made climate change is NOT science.

reply to post by Kali74

Science says that human emissions of GHG's are causing our current global warming and that is happening at a faster rate than any other warming period of our past (that we know of), there is consensus on this.

You see? This is exactly the problem. The globe is not warming faster than any other period. In fact, we are in a cooling cycle right now. Global warming supports tend to spread mis-information in order to get their way with a complete disregard for the facts.

And I guess you missed the entire Climate Gate scandal?

reply to post by phantomjack


Sickening. In Quebec we just had our longest winter. In India and Russia there were new records of cold. A new island appeared near Germany (bird Island) because of the sea level DROPPING instead of rising.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Thank you Bob. You said exactly what I was trying to say all along.

reply to post by Kali74


Here is a simple exercise for you. Lets pick ONE of these organizations you list and find specifically in any of their official literature where they "Endorse Man Mad Global Warming"

American Chemical Society.

Since I am a standing member, Lets start with this one.

Originally posted by Danbones
well, when you have a none existant problem, giving your money to all gore will fix it
all children must learn this inconvenient truth
or else

when I see the wealthy owners and their children living next door to one of their coal-burning plants, or next to a refinery or next to fracked gas wells...then I will believe there isn't a problem. doesn't it bother anyone that the very people that say there isn't a problem, have their family living as far away as possible?...

Originally posted by CB328

The earth has undergone several warm up periods over the millennia, long before industrialized man was to blame

Sigh, many of the warm periods were when the land masses were centered around the equator and there were no ice caps at the poles. Obviously those conditions made it hot with people.

The real question is why conservatives have a religious and completely unfounded belief that humans can't ever harm the environment.

For the same reason that Liberals can't understand that the earth is larger than they are.

reply to post by Kali74

You mean some schools are going to teach actual science... in a science class, instead of creationism

No, junk science instead of real science. The OP is right, schools should be teaching about the sun cycles not scaremongering the kids with ideas that man controls the climate by driving around in cars. While we are at it, that ridiculous Story of Stuff needs to go in the trash too. It's all part of the Agenda 21 program to depopulate down to 500 million people worldwide and control where people live, what they live in, what they eat. It's all part of the Sustainable Development program designed to ration resources and micromanage everyone's lives. Welcome to the 21st Century Ultimate Nanny State.

Come to think of it, why do you and the OWS crowd only hate corporations when they are not propagandizing for a Progressive agenda like Climate Change? I was sure you would be on this like butter on bread....

Like many large corporations, Exxon believes the Obama-Jeb Bush -Bill Gates-backed Common Core scheme will improve education. Reality check: This top-down federalization of academic standards and testing will do just the opposite not only for math education, but across the pedagogical board.

Today, Exxon aired pro-Common Core ads during the Masters golf tournament.

twitchy.com...

I guess when they support your goals they ain't so bad eh?

And please, must you really use that bogus hockey stick graph for your argument? Even Al doesn't believe his own propaganda, as he built a giant mansion home right on the ocean front(means he knows the ocean isn't going to rise unless he has a death wish for his own family) and then sold his carbon credit biz for a ton of money(meaning the whole thing was a money making scam for him anyway).
How can you support this with a straight face and having it taught in schools as curriculum standards?

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Danbones
well, when you have a none existant problem, giving your money to all gore will fix it
all children must learn this inconvenient truth
or else

when I see the wealthy owners and their children living next door to one of their coal-burning plants, or next to a refinery or next to fracked gas wells...then I will believe there isn't a problem. doesn't it bother anyone that the very people that say there isn't a problem, have their family living as far away as possible?...

And what do any of the three industries you list have anything to do with Man Made Global Warming?

Oh yes, the agenda dictates that we must use what ever means to destroy capitalism. /sarcasm

And as far as Fracking is concerned, put one in my front yard. I beg you.

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by Danbones
well, when you have a none existant problem, giving your money to all gore will fix it
all children must learn this inconvenient truth
or else

when I see the wealthy owners and their children living next door to one of their coal-burning plants, or next to a refinery or next to fracked gas wells...then I will believe there isn't a problem. doesn't it bother anyone that the very people that say there isn't a problem, have their family living as far away as possible?...

And what do any of the three industries you list have anything to do with Man Made Global Warming?

Oh yes, the agenda dictates that we must use what ever means to destroy capitalism. /sarcasm

And as far as Fracking is concerned, put one in my front yard. I beg you.

I believe a counter with Ted Kennedy opposing wind mills in his family's playground would be appropriate here.

reply to post by Kali74


Oh, I thought you might like to read segments of the Communist Party constitution relating to Sustainable Development

The living standards of workers and the natural environment on which life depends are under constant attack due to the drive for maximum profits inherent in capitalism. Our party fights for jobs and economic security, a decent and rising standard of living, peace, justice, equality, a sustainable environment

www.cpusa.org...

I think it goes just perfect with Exxon and Bill Gates underwriting Common Core, don't you?

reply to post by Kali74

I think they had some legit concerns about intellectual property as well as being under an FOIA attack, a very deliberate 24/7 attack to keep them tied up

A FOIA attack? Oh, not like anything the Left did to Sarah Palin in attacking her with petty suits forcing her to make a decision to leave office then attacking her for that as well? Hmmm ? A bit of the pot calling the kettle black?