Enjoyed the MIT forum Sam.

Overall the actual contents of the climategate emails were touched on very lightly (which was good actually), instead focusing on concerns over the broader public image of scientists (and science) was helpful and a few very important (but too short) points were made I felt including the problem of the increasingly partisan divide in the media and the treatment of climate change in lower education as a belief structure.

Lindzen's 'cleanhouse' comment (towards the end of the video) was the most directly relevent here though, imo

Quote from SamH :

Credit where it's due, Alan. The Mail's successfully put together an editorial based on reporting the facts, leaving political inferences out, and it's refreshing to see. It happens so rarely in journalism these days, even though it's a tenet of journalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... p;feature=player_embedded

(I atleast get the punchline)

Quote from SamH :

Credit where it's due, Alan. The Mail's successfully put together an editorial based on reporting the facts, leaving political inferences out, and it's refreshing to see. It happens so rarely in journalism these days, even though it's a tenet of journalism.

Geez, that's almost a first. I better go look

I just had the mis-fortune to tune into BBC1 while the BBC's flagship 'The One Show' broadcast possibly the most bias bit of reporting I have seen in my entire life on climate change

Quote from Intrepid :

I just had the mis-fortune to tune into BBC1 while the BBC's flagship 'The One Show' broadcast possibly the most bias bit of reporting I have seen in my entire life on climate change

Iplayer link? I want to watch it and laugh

just a bump to bring this up to date with a couple more links

1. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf - This is a report from the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis

"The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. "

and to add more fuel to the fire....

2. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146517

"THE Meteorological Office was last night facing accusations it cherry-picked climate change figures in a bid to increase evidence of global warming[...]experts at the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis say the British dossier used statistics from weather stations that fit its theory of global warming, while ignoring those that do not. They accuse the Met Office’s Hadley Centre of relying on just 25 per cent of Russia’s weather stations and over-estimating warming in the country by more than half a degree Celsius."

I can't believe how much I know about climatology these days. I always had a glancing interest, accompanying my suspicions based on personal experiences and my knowledge of history (Chaucer, cows in Greenland, Thames frozen over etc.) but I never thought I'd be exploring the IPCC AR4 in depth, or that I'd be as knowledgeable as I am, now, regarding the forcings and positive/negative feedbacks of CO2, cloud and water vapour. I know I'm a bit OCD at times, but bloody nora..

Current state of play for me: I'm observing that AGW climatologists are almost solely insulting sceptics and their intelligence with ad hominem attack after attack. Sceptics are responding to these attacks with science. And there is an abundance of it.

With regard to the IEA's paper, I noted that:

Quote from spokesman for the Hadley Centre :

The World Meteorological Organisation chooses a set of stations evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land. We don’t pick them so we can’t be accused of fixing the data. We are confident in the accuracy of our report.

That translates to "We don't cherry-pick data sources, the WMO does it for us."

When you have data available, you use it. All of it. If you're not going to use some of it, you add meta-data explaining the reason for its exclusion (UHI or whatever). At the moment, there is no explanation as to why all of 40% of Russian sites were excluded from the data set, nor why the ones that were excluded happen to also be the most stable (location) and constant (longest records). Yet again, the data is missing or incomplete and all of the scientific method (the explanation for the exclusions) is secret or - worse still - doesn't exist. It's just a continuation of the problem identified by sceptics for years, that they're excluded from the process and denied the ability to replicate the experiments for themselves. It's just more of the "Don't ask impertinent questions, just believe us. We're the official scientists."

Quote from SamH :

Current state of play for me: I'm observing that AGW climatologists are almost solely insulting sceptics and their intelligence with ad hominem attack after attack. Sceptics are responding to these attacks with science. And there is an abundance of it.

I know how the 'skeptics' feel (sorry I had to)

What these scientists have done is very clever, and it's a trend Ive noticed on the BBC especially though it's not exclusive to them. You've touched upon it, but now it's Scientists Vs Skeptics (trying to make it right Vs wrong) instead of scientists A and scientists B differ on these conclusions and here's why.

well thats why they say "these thousands of scientists agree with us" leaving stupid liberals to believe that anyone who disagrees is not a scientist. It has a lot (everything) to do with them owning the media.

Gotta be honest, Mike, to me the whole problem that has been revealed at the UEA CRU revolves in the compromising of scientific integrity by political and advocacy influences. Your answer to the "lefty" influence is a "righty" attack. But you don't address the problem of scientific integrity, and won't make any move to resolve it by ranting politically like you do.

I think you've either completely missed the point or are incapable of achieving political escape velocity. You compound the problem rather than fix it.

Quote from SamH :

I'm observing that AGW climatologists are almost solely insulting sceptics and their intelligence with ad hominem attack after attack.

You could see this very clearly being played out in the MIT forum, with Emanuel firstly stating 'I'm a scientist' and then carrying on about tobacco and the Big Oil disinformation 'machine' the whole time. I've got my own version of Godwin's law now which applies to the climate thing which is that any time someone brings up the tobacco/big oil argument they've lost the debate.

(Emanuel is also apparently not much of an AGWer in private, but ever since his work linking hurricanes and AGW first garnered him a lot of attention by the worlds media he's been happy to go along with the flow, although he has currently backed down on the hurricane/agw link. He is apparently a good scientist but he's also plainly an opportunist).

Quote :

Intrepid
You've touched upon it, but now it's Scientists Vs Skeptics (trying to make it right Vs wrong) instead of scientists A and scientists B differ on these conclusions and here's why.

Yes. Really, the climategate thing couldn't have happened at a worse time. With Copenhagen looming, there was a mad rush to either destroy or protect scientists. The way that Nature and popular magazines such as New Scientist have handled this episode (to say nothing of the popular press) shows that they've drawn a very political line in the sand which has nothing whatsoever to do with good science. This has been going on for a while but the immediate fallout from climategate worsened it. I think the barriers will lessen again as the dust settles and people have had more time to sift through everything in order to absorb what this all means (edit: and especially what it means for science in general). Sweeping the issue under the rug has simply raised more eyebrows... due diligence is nessesary.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

You could see this very clearly being played out in the MIT forum, with Emanuel firstly stating 'I'm a scientist' and then carrying on about tobacco and the Big Oil disinformation 'machine' the whole time.

Yeah, notably propagandist from beginning to end.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

I've got my own version of Godwin's law now which applies to the climate thing which is that any time someone brings up the tobacco/big oil argument they've lost the debate.

hehe! I think they lose it earlier, actually. The term "denier", which is deliberately synonymous with the very derogatory "holocaust denier", Godwins them from the outset.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

(Emanuel is also apparently not much of an AGWer in private, but ever since his work linking hurricanes and AGW first garnered him a lot of attention by the worlds media he's been happy to go along with the flow, although he has currently backed down on the hurricane/agw link. He is apparently a good scientist but he's also plainly an opportunist).

Good point, well made!

[edit] I doubt you missed it, but on the off-chance you did, it's worth reading Chris Landsea's IPCC resignation letter. With the revelations in the emails, it's far easier to read it properly in context...
http://www.climatechangefacts. ... gnationLetterFromIPCC.htm

Quote from SamH :

Gotta be honest, Mike, to me the whole problem that has been revealed at the UEA CRU revolves in the compromising of scientific integrity by political and advocacy influences. Your answer to the "lefty" influence is a "righty" attack. But you don't address the problem of scientific integrity, and won't make any move to resolve it by ranting politically like you do.

I think you've either completely missed the point or are incapable of achieving political escape velocity. You compound the problem rather than fix it.

I care about as much about the science as anyone in the Copenhagen conference right now, which is to say about nil. The political and economic consequences of this are the most important factor in my eyes. Think about this: all of america's enemies (Iran to name one) are delighted to be in favor of making global legislation to limit GW. Do you really think ANY of them give a shit about the environment? NO they just like that it places restrictions on America and spreads our wealth. Science is nothing but a weapon that the left wields much better than the right because they can spread their ideology better through the media and schools. The only way we can resolve any problems in America is to stay as far away from globalization and progressivism as possible, same as we've been doing for the last successful 200 years.

edit: I shouldn't say science is a weapon. Climatology is a weapon.

Reading all this crap has made me so sceptical, at a young age you put your trust in the goverment and people in power to do the right thing but instead it seems its all about getting more money out of the tax payer, everyone is in everything for themselves, ive had a narrow minded view for 18 years, not anymore

Quote from SamH :

I doubt you missed it, but on the off-chance you did, it's worth reading Chris Landsea's IPCC resignation letter. With the revelations in the emails, it's far easier to read it properly in context...
http://www.climatechangefacts. ... gnationLetterFromIPCC.htm

No I hadn't read his letter. I was aware that he quit the IPCC over political concerns. There are a lot more like him around these days, too. I agree about the term 'denier'. Instant Godwin.

Quote :

Mike
America

One thing I don't really understand is the divide being drawn up in Copenhagen between the 'rich' and 'poor' countries. How can the U.S., which is up to its eyeballs in debt, still be considered a rich country? Isn't China richer than the US these days?

Anyway, apparently a deal was just made (source may be dodgy), and you Americans are going to be 100 billion dollars less rich than you are already- if China and India get on board.

I guess it will remain to be seen whether Copenhagen will be any more or just as effective as Kyoto was.

Quote :

Pearcy
Reading all this crap has made me so sceptical

Sometimes it's hard to know whether to cry or laugh...

Quote :

IT was a tear-jerking performance that prompted wild applause among the crowded Copenhagen conference floor.

The lead negotiator for the small island nation of Tuvalu, the bow-tie wearing Ian Fry, broke down as he begged delegates to take tough action.

"I woke up this morning crying, and that's not easy for a grown man to admit," Mr Fry said on Saturday, as his eyes welled with tears.

"The fate of my country rests in your hands," he concluded, as the audience exploded with wild applause.

But the part-time PhD scholar at the Australian National University actually resides in Queanbeyan, NSW, where he's not likely to be troubled by rising sea levels because the closest beach at Batemans Bay is a two-hour, 144km drive away. Asked whether he had ever lived in Tuvalu, his wife told The Australian last night she would "rather not comment".

If Obama has really struck a deal he is really sealing his fate as far as being re-elected goes. The US is still a rich country even if he has ground our economy into the dirt. Of course this all depends on whether the senate ratifies any treaty made at copenhagen. There is a very good chance they're not going to give him any more money, his spending is just getting absolutely ridiculous, we're going to be owned by China forever at this rate.

Quote from flymike91 :

The US is still a rich country even if he has ground our economy into the dirt. There is a very good chance they're not going to give him any more money, his spending is just getting absolutely ridiculous, we're going to be owned by China forever at this rate.

All of these things started happening quite a while before Obama became president.

The whole Copenhagen farce highlights just how hypocritical the governments and representatives of countries etc are...with a supposed frontrunner on environmentalism Prince Charles using a private jet there and back for a 3 hour visit, and Gordon Brown chartering a whole Airbus for him and 18 of his entourage. The whole thing stinks of hypocrisy and pandering to the less well-off countries all clambering over themselves trying to claim they will all be burnt/drowned/blown away by sea level rises that won't affect them at all

Yeah exactly, a lot of the problems Obama is blamed for at present were caused by the previous government.

Yet because he is the current figurehead, all criticism (and praise) is directed mostly at him.

Interesting talk by a leading Physisist at CERN. Appologies if it's been linked before.


http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

In summary, known mechanisms or not there is a lot of emprical evidence pointing towards a close association between cosmic radiation and global temperatures. However, because mechanism for this association is not fully understood the IPCC do not consider it in their climate models.

Quote from v1rg0 :

The president is the pop star miming lyrics he didn't write to a beat he didn't produce, he's the front man. Hopefully it won't be much longer before most people realise that.

yeah true, but if a deal is struck he can kiss byebye to being re-elected

Quote from gezmoor :

However, because mechanism for this association is not fully understood the IPCC do not consider it in their climate models.

That's where the 'settled science' claim really gets me. There are still so many unknown or unquantifiable relationships in climate. Climatology is actually a fairly young science, even though the basic physics of the greenhouse theory were set out a hundred years or so ago. But by procliaming that CO2 is the main driver of climate because we don't know what else it could be just sounds completely weird to me. It's a certainty based on ignorance, atleast that is the way it is popularly being presented to the public.

edit: the table is from the latest IPCC (2007) report

I'm sorry, no matter how bad Bush was, he would have never put forth the kind of spending that Obama has just this year. Thats a democrat thing.

Obama keeps on blaming the Bush administration for every problem but it doesn't cover up the fact that he has not solved any of those problems like he promised. He has only caused more problems and is on the precipice of making the biggest mistake any American president can make: thinking the US should be more like socialist Europe. In 200 years france has had ~18 governments, Russia has had 6, Italy? Lol they don't even know what government they're on right now. America has had one government and it works. We don't need global government, we don't need socialism, we just need to be America again.

"Being American" didn't exactly do you many wonders though, did it. Now your government has to spend some money to sort out all the problems "Being American" caused...

America has had rather a few governments. Unless they've all been the same guys wearing disguises all this time... Don't tell me, Obama is actually... Washington himself?