Climategate and Media lack of Interest

[Aaron Sice]

anything sponsored by NBC will always have pro-govt stance about it.

 

[our obsession]

Incidently, I found a new book to get hold of, looks interesting, is actually referred to in the article:

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

A bit of a passion of mine, forensic decision analysis.

 

[HiEquity]

anything sponsored by NBC will always have pro-govt stance about it.

Actually the work was commissioned by The Associated Press.

 

[Aaron Sice]

appreciate the correction.

still - does not the AP open itself up further to a controlling hand...?

 

[JulieW]

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article15471.html

The Copenhagen Summit not only serves powerful corporate interests, which have a stake in the global multibillion dollar carbon trading scheme, it also serves to divert public attention from the devastation resulting from the "real crisis" underlying the process of economic globalization and a profit driven war without borders, which the Pentagon calls "the long war".

We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. War and economic depression constitute the real crisis, yet both the governments and the media have focused their attention on the environmental devastation resulting from CO2 emissions, which is upheld as the greatest threat to humanity.

 

[Ausprop]

70's - ice age coming, if the commies aren't here first
80's - nukes and AIDS
90's - Y2K will getchya
00's - bird flu, terrorism and global warming

any guesses what the paranoias of the new decade could be?

electomagnetic radiations?
the aztec calendar?

 

[Ace73]

70's - ice age coming, if the commies aren't here first
80's - nukes and AIDS
90's - Y2K will getchya
00's - bird flu, terrorism and global warming

any guesses what the paranoias of the new decade could be?

electomagnetic radiations?
the aztec calendar?

2012- end of the earth
2013- sorry the world didn't end but the aliens are planning a large scale invasion
2020- must be due for another ice age scare
2030- mass hysteria due to over exposure to sunlight
2500 - finally hit by a large space rock, destroying all humanity!!

 

[Nommy]

for those who prefer to listen instead of read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=player_embedded#at=175

The final comments from Dr Tim Ball hits the nail on the head, "this is a deeply, troubling time for not only for climate science but science in general"

 

[joeExpat]

Had to laugh at the news tonight; they were predicting a 1.4 metre sea level rise by 2100.

Considering the sea levels haven't altered in about what? oh; 100 million years or whatever, and now we are going to have a massive one in less than 100 years.

yeah.......

Only 14,000 years ago sea levels rose 20 metres in 400 years, that's 1 metre every 20 years. It can happen.
So much unfounded scepticism on here. Is FOX news broadcasting in Australia now ?
The world is heating up, this isn't some 'theory' anymore. The unknown though is degree to which humans are responsible.

 

[our obsession]

While I do not condone unprofessional behaviour, there is some kind of concern I am feeling over climate-email-gate concerns.

I think the thing being I am aware that anyone capable of getting hold of, for example, my emails could easily make a case of (almost), anything out of context...

I do think it important we employ our critical, but open minded thinking, I think contrasting ideas and thoughts are very important, but I also believe in people being able to reply to their accusors. I think if people are motivated strongly enough it is possible to bring disrepute on whatever level they can.

On that basis, of not backing myself into a corner, I was interested in hearing what the scientists had to say, (those involved in the email controversy).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/michael-mann-in-his-own-w_b_371414.html

Michael Mann In His Own Words On The Stolen CRU Emails

(Kevin Grandia November 26, 2009)

Excerpt:

With all the wild accusations flying around over the illegally obtained email correspondence from the University of East Climate Research Unit, I thought I would ask one of the scientists in the middle of the issue to provide some context.

Penn State University climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, whose name appears in some of the stolen emails, provided me with a run-down of the emails that involve him. His responses provide some much needed context and give you an idea of just how wildly some people have blown this story out of proportion.......and so on.

 

[Sunfish]

We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. War and economic depression constitute the real crisis, yet both the governments and the media have focused their attention on the environmental devastation resulting from CO2 emissions, which is upheld as the greatest threat to humanity.

Global Warming allows people to be both selfish and moralistic simultaneously. They can pursue their own private agendas while saying "I'm concerned for my grandkids."

As you point out though, if they really WERE concerned for them there are far more serious things to worry about.

 

[Sunfish]

I think the thing being I am aware that anyone capable of getting hold of, for example, my emails could easily make a case of (almost), anything out of context...

How can "delight" at the death of a sceptic be taken "out of context"?

 

[HiEquity]

How can "delight" at the death of a sceptic be taken "out of context"?

Or be taken to have any relevance at all to the subject matter at hand? I suggest sticking to the data and the assumptions going in to the modelling so as to give us our best guess for the long term trends rather than paying any attention whatsoever to the personalities at play, be they Al Gore or Andrew Bolt.

 

[Toon]

Another interesting article:

Why Scientists Lie -- and What to Do about It

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html

 

[Sunfish]

Or be taken to have any relevance at all to the subject matter at hand? I suggest sticking to the data and the assumptions going in to the modelling so as to give us our best guess for the long term trends rather than paying any attention whatsoever to the personalities at play, be they Al Gore or Andrew Bolt.

Reference my moderated post!

 

[Ace73]

Well its good to see the main stream aussie media reporting on this story.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...er-email-scandal/story-e6frf7jx-1225806022990

"THE director of the embattled Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change."

What I thought was a major concern was that the data was dumped.

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

They certainly aren't doing themselves any favors!!

 

[our obsession]

For anyone interested:

Climate Research Unit: Data

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Temperature

From the beginning of January 2006, we have replaced the various grid-box temperature anomaly (from the base period 1961-90) datasets with new versions, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3 (see Brohan et al., 2006). The datasets have been developed in conjunction with Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office. These datasets will be updated at roughly monthly intervals into the future. Hemispheric and global averages as monthly and annual values are available as separate files.
This text gives some brief information to users about the datasets including:
.....so on....

To see FAQ, scroll down end of page.

Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) Data:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php

and here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ghcn/ghcngrid.html

Dr. Benjamin D. Santer
Research Scientist
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Livermore, California

from: ClimateScienceWatch Promoting integrity in the use of climate science in government


http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/phil-jones-and-ben-santer-comment-on-cei/

As I see it, there are two key issues here.

First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) willfully, intentionally, and suspiciously “destroyed” some of the raw surface temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets.

Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC “discernible human influence” conclusions.....so on

 

[our obsession]

If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing.

From Mike Hulme's article, The Science and Politics of Climate Change

(Wall Street Journal 02/12/09)

Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.

Intro:

I am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence.

Remainder of article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571613215771336.html

 

[Sunfish]

From Mike Hulme's article, The Science and Politics of Climate Change

(Wall Street Journal 02/12/09)

Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.

Intro:



Remainder of article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574571613215771336.html

This is the bit I would have highlighted:

One reaction to this "unreasonableness" is to get scientists to speak louder, more often, or more dramatically about climate change. Another reaction from government bodies and interest groups is to use ever-more-emotional campaigning.

Now ain't that the truth.

 

[our obsession]

...and from Popular Mechanics:

What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change

PM guest analyst Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, explains what stolen e-mails from climate scientists corresponding with East Anglia University tell us about global warming—and what they don't.

(By Peter Kelemen
Published on: December 1, 2009)

In the past two weeks, scientists like myself have been gripped by news of the theft and online release of more than a decade of e-mails from one of the world's leading centers for climate-change research, the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's University of East Anglia. During these same weeks, world political leaders have been preparing for a climate summit in Copenhagen and a new study has indicated that a major ice sheet in eastern Antarctica, previously thought to be stable, is in fact losing mass. But those developments have been clouded by the stolen e-mails and what they may imply about how research into human-induced global warming is carried out....

Article can be read here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html