Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research

So they were just "cutting corners" as Stewart claims at the end? Nice spin, Jon.

 

Jimmy Fallon manages to not break character

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FgqhJNN5-lk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FgqhJNN5-lk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

I like Stewart, and here I do agree with him for the most part. All this stuff doesn't debunk the science behind AGW, it simply casts some doubt on it. People that are saying it's completely debunked because of it (see: video of Inhofe) are off their rocker.

 

i have found it odd with how little attention it is getting. Whether it debunks a claim or not, it's very disturbing...both how data is/was manipulated and how something like that can not be covered. I mean tiger cheating is intertaining and all but come on

 

We threw out all the raw data
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Just so no one else could check it
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

 

Mann has definitely contributed to it, perhaps more than we will ever know!

 

Nice!

 

This doesnt' debunk global warming being related to man-kind - I think nearly everyone knows that. Even the Bush Administration admitted that humans were warming the planet in his first term.

The question is how much, and is this reversible?

I think arbitrary limits on CO2 are pre-mature. What is the limit that will make a net positive impact over the short-term negative impact on the economy? I am not convinced it's worthwhile.

Considering the major problem with global warming is sea-level increase. Which is occurring at about an inch every 7 years due to thermal expansion of the oceans.

For all we know, the CO2 out put that occurred in 1960 could enough to continue this warming trend.

That's why I think further study is necessary. Because Co2 isn't going to be cut, it's going to increase. China and India are going to make the current levels look like the Federal Budget Deficit under Reagan. In other words, the trend will probably accelerate.

The logical thing to do is to make plans for the future - say 25 years and 50 years with the impacts of a warmer earth. If we think ahead, than we will be prepared for whatever happens. And...once we do better understand the relationship of Co2 emissions to how much impact it has on temperature, we can implement changes that will lead to a known result. Not just cutting CO2 mindlessly hopeing it helps - that's a desparate way to proceed.

 

The Barracuda weighs in. Looks like the mainstream media are going to be shamed into addressing yet another story.

 

linkage
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188540473434

 

woohoo! penn state!

 

Yeah, uttering her name is a waste of CO2.

 

Of course, as usual, you ignore the best reasons to implement cap and trade when you argue as if the ONLY good reason to do it is AGW. There is a better, more pressing reason for us to implement such a system.

 

While I know every single person has made up their mind on this issue already, I thought the AP investigation this week was worth including in this thread. Very interesting snapshot of science dirty laundry, but also no smoking gun at all, re: "climate gate." I actually took the time to go back to some of the primary literate, and "hide the decline," as the climate scientists have been saying, does not refer to hiding data of recent temperature drops from the public or any other audience. It really does refer to some glitch with tree ring data in the mid-20th century, from what I can tell.

Anyway, here's the AP story, and here's the first bit:
------------------
AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty
(AP) – 1 day ago

LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets. The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"
----------------------

The bolding above is mine. While I'm not at all surprised that no evidence of falsification or fabrication was found, I think there's an important message for scientists in the other bolded stuff. Of course there's every reason to become political when you're researching such a hot topic (pun not really intended, but not deleted either), but that really strains scientific credibility and is ultimately counterproductive. As is the "with us or against us" mindset, which I've seen in science before, but had hoped it was more limited.

I will say that the whole email release has done or not done two things: (1) not changed my view of the mass of data, and its implications, one iota, and (2) changed my view of the climate science community a bit, for the negative.