Climate Gate case closed: no evidence research was falsified

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
this was a pretty hotbutton topic a few years back. well it looks like the climate change deniers were blowing smoke out their collective asses:

background:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA).[4] On 20 November, two weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, an unknown individual or group breached CRU's server and copied thousands of emails and computer files to various locations on the Internet.

Climate sceptics alleged that the emails revealed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics.[7] Climate sceptics said the documents showed evidence that global warming was a scientific conspiracy.
Click to expand...

the latest ruling:

This latest, and hopefully last, investigation into Dr. Mann’s research (PDF) again shows he is not guilty of misconduct. A couple of the report conclusions are worth pointing out:

"We found no basis to conclude that the [Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."

"There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct."
Click to expand...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/

the climate change deniers will just ignore this and continue to believe scientists falsified evidence

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/
 
Not going to change anything... I swear to god(and you can bet on this) they will still be referencing climate-gate until the day they die... all the while speaking of impending ice ages when it's cold and solar activity as the sole cause of increased warming when it's hot.

I've been listening to these people for so long... and they so often bounce back and forth between the world is cooling and the world is warming(but not due to man) so much that it's sad.


And of course most pervasive of all is the cursing of Gore. For as much as they say "BOOOOOOOOSH", they sure as ****ing hell say "GORE" a lot as well as if Al Gore is somehow the arbiter of global warming opinion.
 
we have more thermometers and asphalt than we did 100 years ago yeah its hotter but one day we may have to live on either Venus or Mars or even further out so I don't get what the fuss is all about
 
Dandan said:
we have more thermometers and asphalt than we did 100 years ago yeah its hotter but one day we may have to live on either Venus or Mars or even further out so I don't get what the fuss is all about
Click to expand...

 
Argh. It's hard to believe anyone is still denying climate change. Even corporations know this even though they might not publicize it. e.g., commercial shipping lanes in the Arctic have already started opening up due to retreating ice. Apparently the business school here told its students they should invest in levee/flood control companies.

Still, this is not quite as bad as that UK "documentary" several years ago saying climate change didn't exist. They actually did falsify data, like changing axes on graphs or moving data points around, and that crap got aired on tv.
 
A lot of people believe in climate change, but they don't believe it's caused by human activities, and rightly so. They're still called "Deniers" though.
 
morgs said:
A lot of people believe in climate change, but they don't believe it's caused by human activities, and rightly so. They're still called "Deniers" though.
Click to expand...

Rightly so?
 
dfc05 said:
Argh. It's hard to believe anyone is still denying climate change. Even corporations know this even though they might not publicize it. e.g., commercial shipping lanes in the Arctic have already started opening up due to retreating ice. Apparently the business school here told its students they should invest in levee/flood control companies.
Click to expand...
Never come across anyone denying climate change as every thread of evidence points to it happening, what people disagree upon is what the primary cause of it is. You have some people blaming humanity for causing climate change and then you have some people saying that it's the sun causing it.
Fact of the matter is, if the very greatest climatologists in the world can't agree on the primary cause, CERN coming out and saying that the climate calculations being used up to now are complete rubbish due to how much cosmic radiation effects climate change, no one on here should be able to state one way or the other whether humanity is the primary cause or not.

You also have billions and billions of dollars vested in climate change being man made, could be a cover up :)

Edit: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

Whether climate gate was real or not, the results are meaingless.
 
In what sense is calling people equivalent to racists (as per Gore) equivalent to, say, actually being a racist (as per Beck)?

Razor said:
Fact of the matter is, if the very greatest climatologists in the world can't agree on the primary cause
Click to expand...
They can. Lack of scientific consensus is a myth. One and two. There may be some disagreement over how much warming is due to human activity, but there is very little disagreement that it's a serious and significant amount.

You also have billions and billions of dollars vested in climate change being man made, could be a cover up :)
Click to expand...
If climate change is man-made, that means we have to change our current behaviour and quite possibly our habits of production and consumption in order to prevent it from doing even more harm than it already will. You're saying there's more money bound up in protecting this dangerous theory, which might require a change in the way we live our lives if true, than there is in protecting business as usual? You think the Guardian and the universities have more money than the oil industry?

Razor said:
Whether climate gate was real or not, the results are meaingless.
Click to expand...
Sorry? Excuse me? Why are they meaningless when many climate-deniers have stake their argument on this evidence of a scientific conspiracy? You're still alleging (without any grounds) a cover-up, I notice...

By the way, your CERN report articles does not mention any reason why the amount of nucleation by 'cosmic rays' would be increasing or have increased. Discovering that they contribute significantly to the climate may mean little if they have not been for some reason rising. And then you'd need a proposed mechanism as to why the sun is getting hotter or why more rays are getting through the atmosphere...
 
Razor said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ge-deniers-seen-racists-day-says-Al-Gore.html

Al Gore states that anyone who doesn't believe climate change is man made and decides to speak out about it should be vilified as much as rackets are these days, these comments are as terrible as Glenn Becks and the other morons stating Hurricanes and Earthquakes are an act of god.
Click to expand...
Oh hey you're even more alarmist than the Daily Mail. According to their article Al Gore was predicting that people will eventually be vilified, not that they now should be.
 
Sorry, on my iPad so can't quote you fully or point by point Sulkdodds.

What Gore is calling for in that daily mail article, which isn't a reliable news source by any stretch of the imagination though, is that people who deny humans are the primary reason for climate change should be treated like racists are now. So if you come out and say you don't believe that hum as are the sole reason and try to have an open discussion, people should shut you down and tell you to stop.

The vast majority of scientists so humans have changed but some believe it's an insignificant amount and some believe it's the primary reason.

Exact figures are unknown but there are billions and billions globally in subsidies, carbon taxes, etc, that if man made climate change were proven to be rubbish, some people would lose massively. My comment about a cover up was Tongue in cheek though, hence the smilie emoticon at the end of the sentence.

The results are meaningless because certain things weren't taken into consideration, as per CERNs recommendations that climate models would need to be modified to include the newest discoveries they have just made to be accurate. And CERNs report doesn't include the reasons for it increasing or having increased because, from my understanding of the CERN report, it doesn't state that this is something that has changed, merely it's something that they've only just understood to be affecting cloud formation and climate change as much as it is or that it's not something that has ever been put into the climate models previously.

There is a lot of studies already into why the sun gets more and less active, if you google solar cycles it should go a long way to explaining it.

My argument still stands though, with climatologists not being able to agree on what th primary reason for climate change actually is and people like CERN coming out and stating that current climate models need to be changed, the vast majority of the people shouldn't be able to argue either way whether it's right or wrong, including myself. The problem I have is with some climate change scientists trying to block discussions on the matter and state that people who don't agree with them should be thrown out and vilified as idiots.
 
iuADK.jpg
 
ICECAP is an acronym for International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, and it is as festering a hotbed for notorious climate change denialists as I have seen outside of JunkScience. On its home page, ICECAP prominently features articles by Christopher Monckton and D'Aleo, both of whom are closely associated with the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). SPPI, in turn, is an offshoot of the right-wing Frontiers of Freedom think tank. According to Wikipedia, SPPI was formerly named the Center for Science and Public Policy and was originally created with the help of a $100,000 donation from ExxonMobil.
Click to expand...


http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2008/03/26/antarctic_ice_shelf
 
Temperatures now not dissimilar to temperatures 1000 years ago, also shows temperature cycles that correspond to solar sunspot cycles.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...-guardian-and-the-vile-hypocrisy-of-the-left/

The problem with climate change is that it's gone from a scientific debate to a political debate, which then means lots of people making lots of money, especially relating to subsidisation of wind power where companies are paid money whether they produce power or not, it also means both sides are suspicious of each, have their own axes to grind and no one gets anywhere.
 
World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced by the Greening Earth Society, a non-profit organization created by the Western Fuels Association.

the Greening Earth Society was a non-profit organization created by the Western Fuels Association,[1] with which it shared an office and many staff members.[2][3][4][5][unreliable source?] It has been called a "front group created by the coal industry"[6] and an "industry front".[7] Fred Palmer, a Society staffer, is a registered lobbyist for Peabody Energy, a coal company.

The Western Fuels Association is a not-for profit cooperative that supplies coal and transportation services to consumer-owned electric utility in the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain and Southwest regions. It is based in Westminster, Colorado.

The Western Fuels Association has played a controversial role in the debate over global warming. Their 2005 Annual report[1] refers only to 'environmental and regulatory uncertainty', but they have been more outspoken in past annual reports. They have established groups such as the Greening Earth Society which promote various forms of climate change skepticism and have funded individual skeptics, such as Patrick Michaels[2], Craig D. Idso and Sherwood Idso. Groups established by industry bodies like the Western Fuels Association have been criticized as Astroturf organizations, since they appear superficially to be grassroots initiatives.
Click to expand...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Climate_Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Fuels_Association
 
ffs Razor check your goddam sources

In June 2009, the first full NIPCC report was published by The Heartland Institute


The Heartland Institute questions the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring and, further, that warming would be beneficial if it did occur.[9] The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which describes itself as "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming."[10] In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway wrote that the Heartland Institute was known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is fake."

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[23] Greenpeace reported that the Heartland Institute received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.

The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from the tobacco company Philip Morris.

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[6][15] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish "policy studies" which summarized Philip Morris reports.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/the-nipcc-report/
 
I'm just googling links to stuff I find interesting CptStern, you're doing a grand job of "peer" reviewing the sources :).
 
peer reviewing? I'm exposing every one of your links as research funded by the oil and coal industry. that's called pointing out obvious bias
 
CptStern said:
peer reviewing? I'm exposing every one of your links as research funded by the oil and coal industry. that's called pointing out obvious bias
Click to expand...

Just because it's funded by the oil and coal industry doesn't mean that it's bad science, you have to keep an open mind and your eyes open.
 
No, but it does mean you have a literal multiple-million-dollar reason to distrust it.
 
Stigmata said:
No, but it does mean you have a literal multiple-million-dollar reason to distrust it.
Click to expand...

Well that is true, it can get rather murky when we just look at the source only. I agree there needs to be a more sceptical view to papers published by people who have a directly conflicting interest, but we must be careful in case we brush away potentially decent work.
 
The conflict of interest means there isn't any reason to think it's "decent work" in the first place. These people are selling snake oil. (pun unintended :v )
 
Put simply: how willing would you be to trust a study on tooth decay if it was sponsored by Cadbury?
 
Razor said:
Just because it's funded by the oil and coal industry doesn't mean that it's bad science, you have to keep an open mind and your eyes open.
Click to expand...

it starts off in a bad place: funded to prove a conclusion. that in itself makes any points brought up in the research questionable
 
Krynn come on this is no time to talk about the great taste of Cadbury chocolate.

This post brought to you by the great taste of Cadbury chocolate.

Z2Vsa.jpg


christ I had to crop so much of my room out of this what a ****ing bombsite
 
Bad^Hat said:
Put simply: how willing would you be to trust a study on tooth decay if it was sponsored by Cadbury?
Click to expand...

I know that, however there might something worth knowing (could be like a couple of lines) regardless. Let alone that the people could have some sort of integrity and will do their research properly regardless of source.
 
CptStern said:
it starts off in a bad place: funded to prove a conclusion. that in itself makes any points brought up in the research questionable
Click to expand...

With how politicised climate change is, even some people at the very top are coming out after they've retired and said that if they dared speak out against climate change, even being backed up with raw data, their career would be ridiculed, they'd be fired, the majority of the peer reviewed science magazines would refuse to print their work and their name would be dragged through the mud, by fellow climate change scientists who won't believe anything other than humanity is facing a massive man made disaster in the next 25 years.

You also have Germany, a country that has turned it's back on nuclear power purely for political reasons, based on the prospects of tsunamis and massive earthquakes simulataneously hitting Germany, because it's seen as an unpopular technology amongst the "greens" yet are now having to inest money in high carbon coal stations to compensate. The UK, which I'm happy to report, seem to be moving towards a more pro-nuclear aspect, a proven, reliable, low carbon technology that is cable of powering the country into the future, that's also cheaper than off-shore wind farms.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

There does seem to be quite a disagreement between what wind and nuclear, for kw per £/$/€, cost relating to each other, especially dependant on what organisation are releasing the results. Very pro green left wing organisations state nuclear is a lot more expensive, others state nuclear is cheaper by a large margin compared to off shore wind.

Edit:

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/09/...mate-change-denial-out-of-football’-campaign/

:)
 
Razor said:
With how politicised climate change is, even some people at the very top are coming out after they've retired and said that if they dared speak out against climate change, even being backed up with raw data, their career would be ridiculed, they'd be fired, the majority of the peer reviewed science magazines would refuse to print their work and their name would be dragged through the mud, by fellow climate change scientists who won't believe anything other than humanity is facing a massive man made disaster in the next 25 years.
Click to expand...

The science for the most part is not politicised. Also I feel most of those allegations are not true.
 
Razor said:
With how politicised climate change is, even some people at the very top are coming out after they've retired and said that if they dared speak out against climate change, even being backed up with raw data, their career would be ridiculed, they'd be fired, the majority of the peer reviewed science magazines would refuse to print their work and their name would be dragged through the mud, by fellow climate change scientists who won't believe anything other than humanity is facing a massive man made disaster in the next 25 years.

You also have Germany, a country that has turned it's back on nuclear power purely for political reasons, based on the prospects of tsunamis and massive earthquakes simulataneously hitting Germany, because it's seen as an unpopular technology amongst the "greens" yet are now having to inest money in high carbon coal stations to compensate. The UK, which I'm happy to report, seem to be moving towards a more pro-nuclear aspect, a proven, reliable, low carbon technology that is cable of powering the country into the future, that's also cheaper than off-shore wind farms.
Click to expand...

well then obviously global warming is hoax because some people might have had their reputations tarnished had they spoken out
 
CptStern said:
well then obviously global warming is hoax because some people might have had their reputations tarnished had they spoken out
Click to expand...

If you've read my posts, you'll have realised that I agree climate change and "global warming" is happening, just not what the primary cause of it is and whether man is solely responsible. With the green policies costing tax payers thousands of £ extra over the next 8 years, renewable energy companies failing a couple of years after receiving over half a billion $ in tax payers money, reports coming out stating for every 1 job created in the renewable energy field, between 2 and 3 jobs are lost elsewhere. Can the world really cope with this ever accelerating march towards renewable energy and is the price too high?

The last part of my post I'll create a new thread about later.
 
would you rather we do nothing and wait for the economy/society to collapse due to lack of energy? you're basically implying that mankind has had no impact on global warming so we might as well keep banging the oil drum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Atomic_Piggy
Scientists find no link between climate change and the sun
2
Replies
63
Views
2K
Eejit
Eejit
jondy
On Michael Crichton
Replies
31
Views
1K
jondy
jondy
Back
Top