Why Do Environmental Activists Continue...

[lomiller]

I'm flattered, considering that it's my graph

I was going to link one of your graphs yesterday but I couldn’t find your album…

 

[INRM]

I'm not sure if this is correct, but didn't the East Anglia researchers also fudge data in the past to make it seem as if it was cooler than it was in the past than it actually was, in addition to making it seem as if it has gotten progressively hotter since 2000?

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not sure if this is correct, but didn't the East Anglia researchers also fudge data in the past to make it seem as if it was cooler than it was in the past than it actually was, in addition to making it seem as if it has gotten progressively hotter since 2000?

Are you talking about the stolen emails? If so, then no, that is not correct either.

 

[BenBurch]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5427232&postcount=108

 

[lomiller]

I'm not sure if this is correct, but didn't the East Anglia researchers also fudge data in the past to make it seem as if it was cooler than it was in the past than it actually was

Short answer, no.

Longer answer, the quality of data collection from weather stations has improved over the last 130 years. This mainly consists of identifying and removing factors that can cause them to read higher then current air temperature. Common sense should tell you that there should be very few reasons for a weather station would read below the real air temperature.

As these factors are identified and documented in the literature processes are developed that remove their effect from the data. These processes are also well documented in the literature. Presumably this is the adjustments you are referring to, and other then political spin they are 100% valid and documented in the appropriate literature.

 

[psychictv]

I'm not sure if this is correct, but didn't the East Anglia researchers also fudge data in the past to make it seem as if it was cooler than it was in the past than it actually was, in addition to making it seem as if it has gotten progressively hotter since 2000?

Sigh. No. They adjusted earlier numbers downwards because those numbers were gathered in a different location where it is warmer!

 

[Checkmite]

Why do environmental activists continue talking about the danger of increasing global warming effects even though it's been proven that the data that showed that since 2000 there has not been any evidence to suggest an increase in temperature (Even the BBC wrote this), and that conclusive evidence exists to suggest that the East Anglia CRU, along with other Climate Research Units around the world have went to elaborate machinations to manipulate climate research data to falsely show a progressive increase in temperature when there currently is none?

Due to what was revealed about the activities of the scientists in the "East Anglia" CRU, I'm afraid any bit of research they have contributed is discredited in my opinion.

But what is this about "other Climate Research Units around the world"? Was the CRU some kind of chain? I was unaware of any of the leaked emails revealing a global scientist conspiracy, nor implicating any scientist in any other research "unit" of any malfeasance.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Do melting ice caps and mountain tops not count as evidence anymore?

Sure, of GW, but not AGW.

This certainly provide evidence that current temperatures are high enough to cause this melting. It does not provide evidence that temperatures have continued to increase during the time frame referenced in the OP.

See above too

The OP is making (or repeating) a false claim regarding some quotes in e-mail recently stolen from the Hadley Climate Research Unit in the UK.

Do you have new evidence that prove they were stolen?
From what I see, most pundits still talk of a whistleblower.

At any rate, you have no proof that they were "stolen" I am aware of, so who is making "false claims" here?
As far as the content of the emails go. I think you are kidding yourself as do millions of others. This was surely reflected in the Copenhagen result (read fiasco).

In the e-mail they were discussing how to present a graph of a temperature proxy that is know to decline is usability after 1960. (This issue with the proxy is discussed extensively in the literature because while it’s cause it’s really known it’s possible evidence of CO2 fertilization increasing tree growth.)

Or they were cheating

They were using the proxy in their paper and discussing how to present it in the correct context. They decided to graph it along with the actual measured temperatures from the same time to show that the decline present in the proxy was not an indicator of declines in actual temperature.

Or they were cheating

When the e-mails were stolen the usual political suspects extracted a single sentence from that e-mail and quoted it as evidence scientists were trying to hide some decline in actual temperatures.

Prove they were stolen please.
They weren't trying to "hide the decline"?! You're not serious surely?

For what the actual data says of the last 10 years this thread is a good place to start. Basically statisticians were given the global temperature data from 4 different sources without knowing what was being represented. They were then asked if there was a trend since 1950 to which they all said yes, and if there was evidence of any change in that trend in the last 10 years to which they all said no.

Proving what there is a trend over 50 or 60 years. And that the trend encompasses the last 10 years? Well of course it does. It certainly doesn't disprove no warming over the past decade either does it.

At any rate does it prove is that there is Global Warming? Well of course it does. But who here is arguing that there isn't? Honestly.
It does not prove the 'A' in AGW now does it?

How about (say) a thousand years? Two thousand? 20 thousand? How do the trends look over those periods?

And when it turns out to be no big deal, then what?

Then it's still no big deal.

 

[Cynic]

Arrogant&Naive2say man overpwers nature. Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng.

Proving what there is a trend over 50 or 60 years. And that the trend encompasses the last 10 years? Well of course it does. It certainly doesn't disprove no warming over the past decade either does it.

At any rate does it prove is that there is Global Warming? Well of course it does. But who here is arguing that there isn't? Honestly.
It does not prove the 'A' in AGW now does it?

How about (say) a thousand years? Two thousand? 20 thousand? How do the trends look over those periods?

The thing is, it's not enough to look at warming and cooling trends. You want to also look at everything that influenced those trends -- how the various systems recovered, etc. The current composition of gases in the atmosphere simply and indisputably could not have happened without the life present here on Earth. From bacteria to trees to water reservoirs, those things influence climate by adding and subtracting gases. And now we're doing that too. Not only that, we're adding and subtracting everything from bacteria to trees water reservoirs without regard to how they interact with the environment.

It is only from a position of ignorance that we can say that it is "arrogant&Naive2say man overpwers nature".

 

[Megalodon]

Do you have new evidence that prove they were stolen?
From what I see, most pundits still talk of a whistleblower.

Or maybe bigfoot wrote them . Anyway, the burden of proof is yours. The victims talk of a robbery, and no whistleblower has come forth.

At any rate, you have no proof that they were "stolen" I am aware of, so who is making "false claims" here?

You are. Until a whistleblower comes forth, or East Anglia says it was an internal leak, it is a robbery.

As far as the content of the emails go. I think you are kidding yourself as do millions of others. This was surely reflected in the Copenhagen result (read fiasco).

Pathetic... A meeting of hundreds of negotiators ends with a compromise. Of course it was the emails

Or they were cheating
Or they were cheating

You were explained this matter many times. Your insistence in remaining ignorant is depressing.

Prove they were stolen please.
They weren't trying to "hide the decline"?! You're not serious surely?

You were explained this matter many times. Your insistence in remaining ignorant is depressing.

Proving what there is a trend over 50 or 60 years. And that the trend encompasses the last 10 years? Well of course it does. It certainly doesn't disprove no warming over the past decade either does it.

The trends analysed included the last decade. A warming was shown to occur. As this graph shows:

It does not prove the 'A' in AGW now does it?

No, science does.

How about (say) a thousand years? Two thousand? 20 thousand? How do the trends look over those periods?

No trends in these graphs, but you can easily see them.

One thousand.
Two thousand.
Twelve thousand.

 

[psychictv]

Due to what was revealed about the activities of the scientists in the "East Anglia" CRU, I'm afraid any bit of research they have contributed is discredited in my opinion.

No, due to the fact that the stolen emails revealed that the scientists did nothing wrong or out of the ordinary, anything said by GW deniers is now even more discredited since they have to steal documents and lie about the contents to make a point.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Anyway, the burden of proof is yours. The victims talk of a robbery, and no whistleblower has come forth.

No, the burden of proof will remain with the police until they figure out what happened. In the meantime, the allegation of "theft" is simply that, an allegation.
You can't show or prove that it is theft any more than I can prove the other.

My comments are factual and balanced, yours and Lomillers are false.

You need to prove they have been stolen if you wish to use that word.

I note also that most balanced media outlets are still using the word "hacked". They don't know - nor do you.

Until a whistleblower comes forth, or East Anglia says it was an internal leak, it is a robbery.

No, it's a potential robbery under investigation.
Moreover, even your own words, an "internal leak" sounds a hell of a lot more like a whistleblower than a robbery.

Pathetic... A meeting of hundreds of negotiators ends with a compromise. Of course it was the emails.

No, a meeting of hundreds of negotiators, over two years, costing billions of dollars ends in ABJECT FAILURE.

You were explained this matter many times. Your insistence in remaining ignorant is depressing.

I was given a version that is wishy washy at best. Having it "explained" by those wishing to deflect concern can only be seen for what it/they are. Weak and unconvincing.

You were explained this matter many times. Your insistence in remaining ignorant is depressing.

See above.
btw, I am sorry for your depression, accepting life on life's terms can be difficult, I know. Best you see a doctor - there are treatments for your illness.

No, science does..

Hence the Copenhagen result. Clearly the science is not taken completely seriously.

No trends in these graphs, but you can easily see them...

Check this graph out

http://theautopsy.wordpress.com/

No, due to the fact that the stolen emails revealed that the scientists did nothing wrong or out of the ordinary, anything said by GW deniers is now even more discredited since they have to steal documents and lie about the contents to make a point.

No, the emails were taken by someone - at this point we do not know whether they were stolen by outsiders or a whistleblower were responsible. The emails themselves reveal some underhanded, dishonest, possibly illegal dealings and comments. But they are certainly enough to bring their science and integrity into disrepute.

This is what makes people with a balanced perspective see them for what they are.

 

[psychictv]

The emails themselves reveal some underhanded, dishonest, possibly illegal dealings and comments.

Wrong.

But they are certainly enough to bring their science and integrity into disrepute.

No.

This is what makes people with a balanced perspective see them for what they are.

This is what makes zealots with a political axe to grind ignore mainstream science and resort to absurd conspiracy theories to justify their worldview.

 

[Megalodon]

No, the burden of proof will remain with the police until they figure out what happened. In the meantime, the allegation of "theft" is simply that, an allegation.

You have a very interesting perspective of the world. It doesn't match reality.

You can't show or prove that it is theft any more than I can prove the other.

I don't need to prove it was theft. All the parties in this matter are, at the moment, treating it as theft. I have no reason to doubt them. If new information comes to light, my position will be adjusted accordingly.

My comments are factual and balanced, yours and Lomillers are false.

No, our statements are accurate representations of the matter as it stands. Yours are wishful thinking from another 'on-the-fence' delayer.

You need to prove they have been stolen if you wish to use that word.

No, and you repeating yourself doesn't change reality one bit.

I note also that most balanced media outlets are still using the word "hacked". They don't know - nor do you.

I don't care about the media outlets either way.

Moreover, even your own words, an "internal leak" sounds a hell of a lot more like a whistleblower than a robbery.

It's your language, you should learn it and cherish it. I explicitly said that "Until a whistleblower comes forth, or East Anglia says it was an internal leak, it is a robbery". Read it again and you will understand why your reply was nonsense.

No, a meeting of hundreds of negotiators, over two years, costing billions of dollars ends in ABJECT FAILURE.

Even if it was true, what does that have to do with the science?

I was given a version that is wishy washy at best. Having it "explained" by those wishing to deflect concern can only be seen for what it/they are. Weak and unconvincing.

For those with an agenda, that dismiss all scientific evidence for blog posts, sure it's unconvincing.

btw, I am sorry for your depression, accepting life on life's terms can be difficult, I know.

And there goes another one zooming past you...

Hence the Copenhagen result. Clearly the science is not taken completely seriously.

And since when is that news? Politicians will play politics, and occasionally stumble in the right direction. Nobody was expecting much more from Copenhagen than what was produced. Paraphrasing CapelDodger, this meeting is just a platform for the next meeting, maybe in Geneva, where all negotiations go to die. The aim is to continue to stumble in the right direction, and to keep creating incentives for CCS and CCC mechanisms.

No, the emails were taken by someone - at this point we do not know whether they were stolen by outsiders or a whistleblower were responsible.

Guess what, you are still wrong. Just because the delayers prefer to invent a putative whistleblower, to give their bottom-of-the-barrel conduct a veneer of righteousness, doesn't make it reality. Until one comes forward, or East Anglia says one exists, your whistleblower is in the same territory of Bigfoot.

The emails themselves reveal some underhanded, dishonest, possibly illegal dealings and comments. But they are certainly enough to bring their science and integrity into disrepute.

Very easy to make those assertions, if you ignore completely the context of the comments. But of course, you can prove me wrong by providing evidence of those "dishonest, possibly illegal dealings".

This is what makes people with a balanced perspective see them for what they are.

You wouldn't know people with a balanced perspective on this matter if they fell on you...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I don't need to prove it was theft. All the parties in this matter are, at the moment, treating it as theft. I have no reason to doubt them. If new information comes to light, my position will be adjusted accordingly.

No, you can't prove it was theft.
And who are these 'others' that you speak of?

No, and you repeating yourself doesn't change reality one bit..

And right back at you..

I don't care about the media outlets either way. .

No you would rather irrationally defend the unscrupulous than apply some balanced logic.

Even if it was true, what does that have to do with the science?.

I linked it to the lask of belief, not science.

For those with an agenda, that dismiss all scientific evidence for blog posts, sure it's unconvincing.

Which agenda is that?
The one where actions to curb AGW continue to fail because no one of importance believes the alarmists and their predictions are real?

And since when is that news? Politicians will play politics, and occasionally stumble in the right direction. Nobody was expecting much more from Copenhagen than what was produced. Paraphrasing CapelDodger, this meeting is just a platform for the next meeting, maybe in Geneva, where all negotiations go to die. The aim is to continue to stumble in the right direction, and to keep creating incentives for CCS and CCC mechanisms.

Really?
Where's my laughing dog?

Guess what, you are still wrong. Just because the delayers prefer to invent a putative whistleblower, to give their bottom-of-the-barrel conduct a veneer of righteousness, doesn't make it reality. Until one comes forward, or East Anglia says one exists, your whistleblower is in the same territory of Bigfoot.

Bzz, other way around.
The onus of proof is on those making the allegations.
In the UK as in my country, a person is considered innocent until - guess what? - PROVEN guilty.
At the moment, we don't even have a culprit. We have an unknown "hacker". Is this a thief that hacked the emails or a a whistleblower? At the moment no one knows. So your (and others) use of the word thief are dishonest or, at the very least premature pending evidence PROVING those allegations.

Very easy to make those assertions, if you ignore completely the context of the comments. But of course, you can prove me wrong by providing evidence of those "dishonest, possibly illegal dealings".

And very easy to try and defend them in that case too. Hmm?

 

[psychictv]

E-mails alleged to undermine climate change science were held back for weeks after being stolen so that their release would cause maximum damage to the Copenhagen climate conference, according to a source close to the investigation of the theft.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6941880.ece

Attempted breaches show larger effort to discredit climate science: researcher
An alleged series of attempted security breaches at the University of Victoria in the run-up to next week's Copenhagen summit on climate change is evidence of a larger effort to discredit climate science, says a renowned B.C. researcher....
Mr. Weaver believes the timing of the alleged attempts to breach security is linked to the coming Copenhagen summit. In the Jones case, he blasted the media for being sucked in by the minutiae of old emails rather than trying to determine who is ultimately responsible for what he called an agenda-based campaign to discredit climate science...
"The real story in this is, who are these people and why are they doing it?" Mr. Weaver said, noting the Jones controversy was not the result of a "lucky hack" days before the Copenhagen conference. "They're trying to find anything. They don't care what it is."...
He believes the campaign is driven by the fossil-fuel industry, citing "a war for public opinion."

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=2300282

Suspicions were growing last night that Russian security services were behind the leaking of the notorious British ‘Climategate’ emails which threaten to undermine tomorrow’s Copenhagen global warming summit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-city-university-built-KGB.html#ixzz0Yw9PwqXM

...

 

[Hallo Alfie]

All speculation, proving what?

That the emails may or may not have been the work of a thief?
They each use the words "hacked", "leaked" or similar.
There is one reference (that I saw) to stolen, but no proof of that.
Mere speculation by each report as to what may or may not have occurred.

As to the timing of the release of the emails just before Copenhagen. Obviously anyone who wanted to do damage would time the release to its optimum. That's just good sense and tactics.

Sorry, but this shows us nothing but more speculation on what may or may not have happened.

The emails are real, the duplicity is evident, their actions disgraceful, and investigations and time alone will show us what really happened.

 

[Megalodon]

Bzz, other way around.
The onus of proof is on those making the allegations.
In the UK as in my country, a person is considered innocent until - guess what? - PROVEN guilty.

However, you don't refrain from accusing the scientists at East Anglia... Those are guilty until... well, given your approach, they are guilty, period, facts be damned.

You are a hypocrite, and a waste of everybody's time. You are ignorant and refuse to be taught...

Depressing.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Please show me where I have said they are guilty of anything illegal.
I have constantly said that only the completion of investigations would prove their guilt or otherwise.

They are imo, guilty of being foolish and unprofessional, sure. That the emails look very bad too, no question.
But please do not misrepresent my statements.

 

[mhaze]

Why do environmental activists continue talking about the danger of increasing global warming effects even though it's been proven that the data that showed that since 2000 there has not been any evidence to suggest an increase in temperature (Even the BBC wrote this), and that conclusive evidence exists to suggest that the East Anglia CRU, along with other Climate Research Units around the world have went to elaborate machinations to manipulate climate research data to falsely show a progressive increase in temperature when there currently is none?

I'm wondering if this is a kind of propaganda tactic. ....

No kidding?

By the way, don't bother (and I am not being condescending) to list the creed of your beliefs after posting a question of this sort. The true believers will peg you as a Denier irregardless of subtle qualifications because you disagree with their propaganda tactics.