Thread: Key 'climategate' scientist cleared of wrongdoing

And yet we, who remain skeptical (note to Fov lest he come in and decry "DENIERS!!!,DENIERS!!!!!" one can be skeptical and not in denial, for the love of g....pete), see these new reports or inconsistencies cropping up a bit more frequently now:

In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state."

But as Jonathan Leake of London's Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, "did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning."

The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the "transformation of natural coastal areas," the "destruction of more mangroves," "glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches," changes in the ecosystem of the "Mesoamerican reef," and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its "research" reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.

The IPCC has also cited a study by British climatologist Nigel Arnell claiming that global warming could deplete water resources for as many as 4.5 billion people by the year 2085. But as our Anne Jolis reported in our European edition, the IPCC neglected to include Mr. Arnell's corollary finding, which is that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as six billion people.

The IPCC report made aggressive claims that "extreme weather-related events" had led to "rapidly rising costs." Never mind that the link between global warming and storms like Hurricane Katrina remains tenuous at best. More astonishing (or, maybe, not so astonishing) is that the IPCC again based its assertion on a single study that was not peer-reviewed. In fact, nobody can reliably establish a quantifiable connection between global warming and increased disaster-related costs. In Holland, there's even a minor uproar over the report's claim that 55% of the country is below sea level. It's 26%.

Meanwhile, one of the scientists at the center of the climategate fiasco has called into question other issues that the climate lobby has claimed are indisputable. Phil Jones, who stepped down as head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit amid the climate email scandal, told the BBC that the world may well have been warmer during medieval times than it is now.

Asked by the BBC what it means when scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," the keeper of the flame sounded chastened. "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," Jones said. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the . . . past as well."

Jones discussed the highly contentious "medieval warming period." If global temperatures were warmer than today back in 800-1300 AD -- about 1,000 years before Henry Ford's assembly lines began spitting out cars -- it suggests that natural factors have a large hand in climate change, a concession that climate alarmists are loath to make.

Jones said we don't know if the warming in this period was global in extent since paleoclimatic records are sketchy. If it was, and if temperatures were higher than now, "then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

Jones also noted that there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995, although the cooling since 2002 hasn't been statistically significant, either.

As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson notes, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact."

Too many creators and guardians of the "consensus" desperately wanted to believe in it. As self-proclaimed defenders of science, they should have brushed up on their Enlightenment. "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state," said Voltaire, "but certainty is a ridiculous one."

The latest revelations don't disprove the warming of the 20th century or mean that carbon emissions played no role. But by highlighting the uncertainty of the paleoclimatic data and the models on which alarmism has been built, they constitute a shattering blow to the case for radical, immediate action.

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and once a ranking member of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the temperature records have been compromised and cannot be relied on. The findings of weather stations that collected temperature data were distorted by location. Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners.

Which brings me to the point(s) that several people, myself included, have tried to make:

1. Is the climate is changing? Yes.
2. Is pollution a problem? Yes.
3. Does pollution contribute to climate change? Yes.
4. Is pollution caused by man? Yes.
5. Is pollution, and by extension man, solely responsible for the changes noted in global climate? Doubtful.
6. Is pollution, and by extension man, largely responsible for global climate change? Unknown, yet doubtful.
7. Should steps be taken to address pollution? Yes.
8. Have some of the key points in the IPCC Report been overstated? It would appear so.

None of these points, which by the way are largely in line with many of the ideas/ideals that are held (as far as I can tell) by those in support of AICC/ACC/etc, run counter to yours with the exception of 5 and 6 (and possibly 8, but I am getting to that). Those are the sole areas that most "thinking" members disagree on.

However, when we disagree we are roundly ridiculed. Our intellect demeaned. Our personage associated with those of far lower intellect and/or education. We are labeled in an unsubtle and derogatory manner. What I am trying to say is this. Your (if the shoe fits wear it) characterization of anyone who does not agree with the IPCC report in its totality as some lower species is unbecoming of the intellect and intelligence that I know many of you possess. It ought to stop. It is unbecoming of distinguished regs and members of TTP. This is a teamplay environment and it should be treated as such, in all areas. Do you (again if the shoe fits wear it) react this way to a new member to TTP whose particular strategy on a map? If that person has a different opinion on a strategy? No. It shouldn't here either. With the exception of possibly Soy and Pote (if I've missed some of you, my apologies), there aren't any other people that have first-hand knowledge of the research involved (even the research data that their studies are based upon might fall into the next statement). Everyone else is regurgitating the same sets of information ad nauseum, in many cases gleaned from the internet of all places. Cause we all know that internet is 100% correct (10% of the time). All the while, the very information at heart is not guaranteed accurate. So says Phil Jones, the man at the head of IPCC research efforts for quite some time. Does he say that GW/AICC/ACC is a hoax? Of course not. But do his statements cast additional doubt on the body work thus far? In my opinion, yes his statements do cast additional doubt. Does that mean that I've found the "Ah ha" moment that disproves AICC? No, of course not. I am not interested in this topic in order to disprove it. I am in the "camp" of this needs more work before drastic changes to global, political and economic structures are made. Does that mean that there are things that can and should be done in the meantime while the Science carrys on? Of course.

I realize that this is OTS. And that it is the "intarwebz," and supposedly anything goes. If you choose to continue the discussion, then by all means continue the discussion. However, for those of you (in either "camp") who wish to continue to deride and insult the those who disagree with you, by all means keep playing your personal version of internet Valedictorian in the race to the bottom. You'll only find the lowest common denominator when you arrive.

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by Potemkine

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

...

Unbelievable. I have never said or implied that i know everything better than anyone. The number i gave was low fyi. I like how you try to change the topic from what i said in the post. I did not say the emails are proof that they are doing anything. I said they tend to led in that direction. Get your facts straight.

The decline they were trying to hide so to speak is refering to the topic being refered to as Global Warming when there was actually a cooling in process at the time. If i remember correctly and it has been a little bit since i read any of those emails. Nature trick was refering to playing with the numbers a bit to make up for what is considered inconsitant variables.

As to why they would do that i guess it depends on what side of the fence your on. Those for the topic i am led to assume it is to try and come up with as good as a number as humanly possible for an inconseved variable. Those against would say it's to come up with an equation to meet a predetermine solution.

Any other questions that are completely irrelevant to the post you responded to?

As for the bolded section, that is not at all what they were referring to.

For data points prior to the 1960s, tree ring data, coral reefs, ice core samples and other natural indicators of climate were used to gather world wide data on the temperature of the planet. It was quite an accurate system. Until, trees in the 1960s were showing a decline in temperature. This was perplexing because by this time, the world had been covered by a multitude of stations that monitored the weather and climate. These weather stations and related temperatures, were in fact, showing an INCREASE in temperature. As a result, the scientists were seeing incorrect trends in one set, while true temperatures were showing the opposite (measured by/at weather stations). They then applied a "trick" of overlaying ALL the data together over a given interval to establish a common baseline. We then saw a continual rise in temperature.

This "trick" of overlying data sources is quite common to establish a baseline and to get the "big picture". Just look at my explanation of El Nino and the cylcone season around the Americas. I took data from one part of the world, connected it to another, laid the data points over each other, and a gradual trend emerged (increasing amount of severity of storms).

It does not matter what "side of the fence you are on " that determines what the "trick" was or did. What matters is what transpired. What I explained is a FACT, and I use that term because I know how you love facts. This "FACT" has been reproduced by several scientists and confirmed.

Andfthat would be called what? inconsistant vairables nice try but its covered. As to what side of the fence is seeing what. I dont think you are seeing the other side of the fence to begin with so i dont think you can speak for them. I try to see both sides and develope my own conclusion. Of which i have stated over and over and over yet certain people seems to look right past it to say some of the most off the wall shit abouit what i said.

Inconsistent variables? Not quite. The growth rate of trees with respect to conditions has been well understood for quite some time. What scientists did was compare the growth rate of trees in their respective environments with the REAL temperatures that were observed from thermometers and the overlay was established to provide a greater time span of temperature trends.

The only legitimate argument that I have seen is that our time span of data and records should be larger. I agree, the more data we have the better. From what we have seen so far, with the data we have established so far, AIGW is the best explanation.

Should verifiable and concrete evidence come to light that shows AIGW is not the best explanation, science will be more than happy to scrap the theory and try to explain the observed better.

I didn't break it down like you did but yes it does apply. If all you see is one legitimate arguement from your perspective thats fine. I never set out to change your mind because i never cared if your opinion matched mine. I agreed many times over in these types of posts that climate change is happening. Like i said before i feel that the data is not complete and that mans role is over stated. Thats it i never said anything more than that.

I would like to agree on the last part but i can't. I feel some of science would be willing to change their mind appone new information but some would not want to money to dry up. Simple human nature thats all.