"I really think people should be discreet ... in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet ..."

Translation: Next time don't leave any evidence that you are LYING.

/#1 rule about Climate Change Fight Club....
/You don't talk about Climate Change Fight Club.

archichris: "I really think people should be discreet ... in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet ..."

Translation: Next time don't leave any evidence that you are LYING.

/#1 rule about Climate Change Fight Club....
/You don't talk about Climate Change Fight Club.

Wasn't Fight Club about schizophrenia...oh, wait, I see the connection to climate change hysteria now.

So is this yet another thread on this where the right pretends that just because one group of people did something stupid, all climate data is somehow bad? Because we just haven't had enough of that idiocy lately.

/ lolwut

these guys got stung badly by the release of those documents.

The fun part about Stonewall Jackson: nobody knows if the name was an insult or a compliment. At Bull Run, Gen. Bee saw Jackson's men, in not the best position, taking a beating from Union regiments and not budging. Bee then noted "There stands Jackson like a stone wall. Let's go help him." Nobody knows if he was complimenting Jackson on his troops not breaking, or insulting him for being in a bad position, and nobody could ask him because Bee was killed half an hour after he said that.

Your history lesson for today.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: global warming, or climate change, or whatever they want to call it, is the least of our worries right now.

The larger concern in the near term is natural resource depletion and habitat destruction. Those two issues deserve a lot more urgent attention than CO2 emissions, and working on those two will help curb CO2 emissions as well.

Who wants to buy some stone wall credits?

make me some tea: I've said it before and I'll say it again: global warming, or climate change, or whatever they want to call it, is the least of our worries right now.

The larger concern in the near term is natural resource depletion and habitat destruction. Those two issues deserve a lot more urgent attention than CO2 emissions, and working on those two will help curb CO2 emissions as well.

Yeah, but ignoring this scandal and it's impact on public perception is only going to damage the more general attitude towards supporting the environmentalist cause.

this thing is bad. And these guys are making it worse.

Weaver95: Yeah, but ignoring this scandal and it's impact on public perception is only going to damage the more general attitude towards supporting the environmentalist cause.

this thing is bad. And these guys are making it worse.

Agreed. The media is already geared to be biased toward corporate interests, so they will push the spin on this as much as possible. Sucks. The only thing the scientists can do is stay on message and continue their research, perhaps the public will come around on it anyway.

/I hate corporate media

Weaver95: this thing is bad. And these guys are making it worse.

The people who are making it worse are people who are calling it a scandal, which is exactly what the creationists and the anti-science jerkwads want.

The climate change zealots don't realize how much trouble they're in. I don't have the expertise to argue data, but I have spent 20 years in the news media and PR, so I'll just leave this point here: there is no longer a debate over whether climate change is occurring and what percentage of that is attributable to man. Anyone notice that? Only how much fake data was used in climate change models, and by who and when.

How wrong am I? Well, before the zealots start trying to dazzle me with data and the rightness of their cause and how both science and the public are on their side in this insignificant little contretemps, ask yourself if you would have seen a headline like this six months ago, or even six weeks ago.

Nobody's debating the climate change proponents any more. They're laughing at them. And in the public sphere, being laughed at is way worse than being hated.

make me some tea: Agreed. The media is already geared to be biased toward corporate interests, so they will push the spin on this as much as possible. Sucks. The only thing the scientists can do is stay on message and continue their research, perhaps the public will come around on it anyway.

/I hate corporate media

I bet you can't wait to see the look on those little Eichmann's faces when they hear this crunchy groove.

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said imposing hefty taxes and increasing electrity monitoring is needed to combat the ways of adults who have been "corrupted" by their daily routines.

Dr Pachauri caused controversy last year after suggesting people should eat less meat due to the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock.

And fark you too you human-hating hippie.

Link (new window)

ne2d: I bet you can't wait to see the look on those little Eichmann's faces when they hear this crunchy groove.

Sig heil!

/wat

makemesometea: The larger concern in the near term is natural resource depletion and habitat destruction. Those two issues deserve a lot more urgent attention than CO2 emissions, and working on those two will help curb CO2 emissions as well.

Now that Global Warming has jumped the shark, I think we just got a sneak preview of the next hysterical catastrophies that will absolutely destroy us all if we don't do as they say RIGHT NOW!

/The debate is OVER -resource depletion and habitat destruction are the new boogey men of the rightously offended.

Il Douchey: makemesometea: The larger concern in the near term is natural resource depletion and habitat destruction. Those two issues deserve a lot more urgent attention than CO2 emissions, and working on those two will help curb CO2 emissions as well.

Now that Global Warming has jumped the shark, I think we just got a sneak preview of the next hysterical catastrophies that will absolutely destroy us all if we don't do as they say RIGHT NOW!

/The debate is OVER -resource depletion and habitat destruction are the new boogey men of the rightously offended.

To be honest, it does look like there may one day be an end to oil...and gold. But thank god, we will always have blood diamonds.

make me some tea: /wat

Just a line that comes to mind when people start complaining about "corporations."

Obdicut: Weaver95: this thing is bad. And these guys are making it worse.

The people who are making it worse are people who are calling it a scandal, which is exactly what the creationists and the anti-science jerkwads want.

the fact that these guys did something wrong just doesn't enter your mind, does it?

I_C_Weener: To be honest, it does look like there may one day be an end to oil...and gold. But thank god, we will always have blood diamonds.

True, oil is finite (gold isn't consumed so, not so much), but man's ability to innovate, if not taxed and regulated into oblivion, is our best chance to overcome the problem.

/Oh, and "habitat destruction"? ...puhleaze. I picture some evil corporate banker taking a golf club to a bird's nest

ne2d: Just a line that comes to mind when people start complaining about "corporations."

Ah, okay. Never heard that before.

Sorry, I'm in the midst of reading "Manufacturing Consent", so I'm a bit angsty about media bias right now. Don't mind me.

Weaver95: the fact that these guys did something wrong just doesn't enter your mind, does it?

What did they do that was wrong, Weaver? The raw data is available from the stations, as it always was. They didn't use data from stations that were deemed unreliable because of urban heat centers.

So what is it that they did, according to you? Please be specific.

Obdicut: Weaver95: the fact that these guys did something wrong just doesn't enter your mind, does it?

What did they do that was wrong, Weaver? The raw data is available from the stations, as it always was. They didn't use data from stations that were deemed unreliable because of urban heat centers.

So what is it that they did, according to you? Please be specific.

you didn't answer my question.

Weaver95: you didn't answer my question.

Okay. Sure, the idea that someone might have farked up and destroyed raw data entered my head. It happens. That it was significant didn't enter my head, because that would involve believing, as you do, in a conspiracy involving 97% of the world's climatologists. Given that the data from all of the various sources-- including the satellite data from Spencer himself-- all agree with each other, it'd hardly be any sort of scandal anyway.

But, given that it didn't happen, it's a relief.

Now, can you answer my question?

What did they do wrong, what did they throw out? Please be specific?

Obdicut: Okay. Sure, the idea that someone might have farked up and destroyed raw data entered my head. It happens. That it was significant didn't enter my head, because that would involve believing, as you do, in a conspiracy involving 97% of the world's climatologists. Given that the data from all of the various sources-- including the satellite data from Spencer himself-- all agree with each other, it'd hardly be any sort of scandal anyway.

that was not what was in those email archives. You didn't read them for yourself, did you?

The problem for these guys isn't that they lost (or deleted) the primary research data. I've said that before - not that you bother reading ANYTHING that I write here, but lets get that out up front just so we're on the same page. Pay attention Obi - the problem isn't that the data got wiped. One more time - the problem isn't that the data got trashed. Are we entirely clear on that point? Because I wouldn't want you to get lost again and go off making sh*t up again.

So. Now that we're clear that deleting the primary data set isn't the problem, let's try something more advanced. The problem here - (and try to focus here Obi because this is important - is that these guys showed a clear pattern of obstruction and obfuscation. They corrupted the peer review process. Those emails make it extremely clear that a group within the IPCC made every effort to squash opposing views and keep out anyone who disagreed with their predetermined viewpoint(s) about global warming.

On a side note - the other, less obvious problem these guys ran into was that somewhere along the line they stopped being scientists and started being lobbyists. They stopped doing their jobs and became activists. And they cloaked their activism in the guise of objective science...which is wrong. All kinds of wrong.

Now, i'm sure you're going to want to completely ignore what I just wrote. you'll put up a flurry of unrelated questions as a distraction. Or start in with the personal attacks. none of that matters. What matters is that email archive is out there online for anyone who wants to see the evidence for themselves. THAT is what's killing the environmental 'movement' right now. You can scream and shout at me all you want, but the thing that's hanging the environmentalists right now is their own words.

Did ya get all that Obi? did you understand what i'm saying?

bah. and I f*cked up my 'bold' tags.

figures.

I need more coffee. And a portal gun.

Weaver95: that was not what was in those email archives. You didn't read them for yourself, did you?

I'm not talking about the email archives, I'm talking about the supposed dumping of data from East Anglia. Are you conflating the two stories?

I know that people like you are using out-of-context stolen emails in order to make 'environmentalists', who apparently, include scientists trying to do science, look bad. There's even people pointing out examples of code they say is fraudulent, and ignoring that it's commented out, which is all kind of amusing.

The Creationists are doing so, lobbyists and think-tanks funded by Texaco and Exxon-Mobil are doing so, and you're doing so.

You have a conspiracy theory that involves 97% of climatologists in the world. You're joining with the most idiotic and moronic of anti-science groups while they make a transparent ploy to affect policy through manufactured scandal right before Copenhagen. For someone who prides himself on being savvy, it's kind of funny that you're at the level of accusing me of "X-files" thinking for pointing out that some think-tanks are just industry front groups.

That you're conflating climatologists with the environmental 'movement' is just the lulz icing on your cake of 'those tricksy scientists with their book-learning' herp-derp.

Weaver95: So. Now that we're clear that deleting the primary data set isn't the problem, let's try something more advanced. The problem here - (and try to focus here Obi because this is important - is that these guys showed a clear pattern of obstruction and obfuscation. They corrupted the peer review process. Those emails make it extremely clear that a group within the IPCC made every effort to squash opposing views and keep out anyone who disagreed with their predetermined viewpoint(s) about global warming.

On a side note - the other, less obvious problem these guys ran into was that somewhere along the line they stopped being scientists and started being lobbyists. They stopped doing their jobs and became activists. And they cloaked their activism in the guise of objective science...which is wrong. All kinds of wrong.

Now, i'm sure you're going to want to completely ignore what I just wrote. you'll put up a flurry of unrelated questions as a distraction. Or start in with the personal attacks. none of that matters. What matters is that email archive is out there online for anyone who wants to see the evidence for themselves. THAT is what's killing the environmental 'movement' right now. You can scream and shout at me all you want, but the thing that's hanging the environmentalists right now is their own words.

Did ya get all that Obi? did you understand what i'm saying?

I've not really seen anything yet that accurately describes all this beyond a few quotes from the stolen emails here and there (and this also presumes that those who released the illegally-obtained correspondences didn't change the wording to make it sound more damning).

Can you provide links to support all this? (sorry if it's been posted all over the internets already, I've been out of the loop for about a week or so and have only seen sparse info about this whole thing).

40below: The climate change zealots don't realize how much trouble they're in. I don't have the expertise to argue data, but I have spent 20 years in the news media and PR, so I'll just leave this point here: there is no longer a debate over whether climate change is occurring and what percentage of that is attributable to man. Anyone notice that? Only how much fake data was used in climate change models, and by who and when.

How wrong am I? Well, before the zealots start trying to dazzle me with data and the rightness of their cause and how both science and the public are on their side in this insignificant little contretemps, ask yourself if you would have seen a headline like this six months ago, or even six weeks ago.

Nobody's debating the climate change proponents any more. They're laughing at them. And in the public sphere, being laughed at is way worse than being hated.

What is the gravitational constant on your planet?

make me some tea:
Can you provide links to support all this? (sorry if it's been posted all over the internets already, I've been out of the loop for about a week or so and have only seen sparse info about this whole thing).

you can see the whole thing for yourself here.

Obdicut: I'm not talking about the email archives, I'm talking about the supposed dumping of data from East Anglia. Are you conflating the two stories?

wait a second - you really DON'T think there's any sort of connection between the two stories? really Obi?

Weaver95: make me some tea:
Can you provide links to support all this? (sorry if it's been posted all over the internets already, I've been out of the loop for about a week or so and have only seen sparse info about this whole thing).

you can see the whole thing for yourself here.

Thanks.

Weaver95: wait a second - you really DON'T think there's any sort of connection between the two stories? really Obi?

I'm asking you, patiently, to make the connection for me.

What data was dumped/destroyed in East Anglia? Please make a clear accusation, instead of doing your usual weasley hint-hinting.

Obdicut: Weaver95: wait a second - you really DON'T think there's any sort of connection between the two stories? really Obi?

I'm asking you, patiently, to make the connection for me.

What data was dumped/destroyed in East Anglia? Please make a clear accusation, instead of doing your usual weasley hint-hinting.

I'm amazed. No, really - I am utterly floored that you refuse - vehemently, I might add - to see why that archive is so damaging.

Let me explain this as simply as I can, and i'll go really really slow for you.

Are you sitting comfortably? then I'll begin. let's start with this simple fact: the loss of that data isn't the issue.

Do you understand that Obi? take it off the table.

please indicate that you understand that statement. otherwise it's pointless to continue further.

Weaver95: wait a second - you really DON'T think there's any sort of connection between the two stories? really Obi?

Better question: Is this a PR story, or a scientific one?

Is this where all the "I don't know anything about the underlying science, but I've formed a firm conclusion on this topic!" posts start?

40below: The climate change zealots don't realize how much trouble they're in. I don't have the expertise to argue data, but I have spent 20 years in the news media and PR, so I'll just leave this point here: there is no longer a debate over whether climate change is occurring and what percentage of that is attributable to man. Anyone notice that? Only how much fake data was used in climate change models, and by who and when.

Oh, it is.

Weaver95: Obdicut: Weaver95: wait a second - you really DON'T think there's any sort of connection between the two stories? really Obi?

I'm asking you, patiently, to make the connection for me.

What data was dumped/destroyed in East Anglia? Please make a clear accusation, instead of doing your usual weasley hint-hinting.

I'm amazed. No, really - I am utterly floored that you refuse - vehemently, I might add - to see why that archive is so damaging.

Let me explain this as simply as I can, and i'll go really really slow for you.

Are you sitting comfortably? then I'll begin. let's start with this simple fact: the loss of that data isn't the issue.

Do you understand that Obi? take it off the table.

please indicate that you understand that statement. otherwise it's pointless to continue further.

What loss of data? The loss of data you refuse to actually explain, because you have no clue what you're talking about?

But anyway, okay, it doesn't matter, apparently.

Does 97% of climatologists having a consensus on the issue of AGW matter, or are they all involved in the largest conspiracy ever? Is Colonel Sanders in on it?

Obdicut:
Does 97% of climatologists having a consensus on the issue of AGW matter, or are they all involved in the largest conspiracy ever? Is Colonel Sanders in on it?

Ok, you got there in a very weird way, but you got there. Good. we're not talking about the loss of any data.

Now. let's talk about that email archive. In those emails, and there are a LOT of them Obi, are a lot of details regarding the nuts and bolts of the climate change debate. Stuff that normally doesn't make it into press releases. Can you follow me that far?

Weaver95: Now. let's talk about that email archive. In those emails, and there are a LOT of them Obi, are a lot of details regarding the nuts and bolts of the climate change debate. Stuff that normally doesn't make it into press releases. Can you follow me that far?

I'm not sure why you think writing in this manner is clever. It just makes you look like n ass.

So yes, I do understand when someone steals email, those emails are not normally what make up press releases. Somehow, my feeble mind can grapple with that concept.

I'm also aware that there are lots and lots of people using out-of-context quotes in the email to smear the scientists who wrote them. Never mind that you have to forget that the data and models from CRU match up with other models and other data sets with no interdependence. Never mind that it's an obvious, obvious ploy occurring right before Copenhangen. Never mind that most of the 'damning' emails have already been shown to be innocuous.

Please go on. I'm having trouble keeping up but if you keep going this slow, I might be able to make it.

By the way, if the missing data doesn't matter, why'd you spend so much time in the other thread ardently defending the Times Online article that claimed data was missing? Why'd you repeatedly make the claim that it had been lost, when it hasn't been?

"So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening"

What if they all want to leave it out?

I know I'm crazy since I think it's possible that humans might not be infallible.

Obdicut: I'm not sure why you think writing in this manner is clever. It just makes you look like n ass.

I'm taking time with you Winston...er...Obi because it's important that you understand.

So yes, I do understand when someone steals email, those emails are not normally what make up press releases. Somehow, my feeble mind can grapple with that concept.

ok, see - here's where you went off the rails. It's ok, I understand why you did it. In fact, that's part of the reason i'm taking this slow and steady.

Now. Back to the topic at hand. So - we've established that the email archive exists, that it is not a hoax, and that the people who's emails are in that archive are a big part of the global warming debate. Still with me Obi? Because this is where it starts to get complicated.

One of the rules of politics is that perception is reality. What things look like is what people believe to be the truth. Got that so far? still there Obi? And that archive contains a LOT of things that show those influential scientists doing some very unethical things. And yes Obi - they were being unethical. Not in any sort of organized manner, but they played political games with the peer review process. you can read it for yourself if you don't believe me. I'm sure you won't do that...but the option is there dude.

Back to my point. we're talking about the world of politics. perception is reality. And that archive shows that those presumably self sacrificing and noble men in white lab coats as being petty, vain and arrogant self serving jerks. In other words, normal human beings with a political agenda. That's also very clear in that archive.

Now. pay attention Obi, because this is the really important part. That archive has damaged the PR goals of those scientists. And to a lesser extent, it's damaged the environmentalist movement as a whole. Why? Because as I said before, in the world of public relations perception is reality. THAT is why it's important to understand the implications of that document dump. No matter what anyone says about global warming, people are reading those emails and wondering if what those lab coats are saying can be trusted.

Did ya get that Obi? Or should I dumb this down some more for ya?

Weaver95: Obdicut: Weaver95: this thing is bad. And these guys are making it worse.

The people who are making it worse are people who are calling it a scandal, which is exactly what the creationists and the anti-science jerkwads want.

the fact that these guys did something wrong just doesn't enter your mind, does it?

So two guys make up the entire scientific community now.

Weaver95: these guys got stung badly by the release of those documents.

You're gonna cling to that like a baby to his bottle.

Fart_Machine:

So two guys make up the entire scientific community now.

it was far more than just two guys.

Weaver95: Did ya get that Obi? Or should I dumb this down some more for ya?

So what you're saying is, CRU's data sets aren't necessarily erroneous, and considering the numerous other satellite and surface data sets collected by numerous other organizations agree with CRU...

...we're either talking about a conspiracy that would level the wildest Truther dream, or CRU's data sets are not erroneous despite the unethical practices of its scientists... and this is a PR nightmare that does not actually change the facts of the situation.

Donald_McRonald: Weaver95: these guys got stung badly by the release of those documents.

You're gonna cling to that like a baby to his bottle.

that stuff was toxic to the environmental movement. But hey, keep ignoring it. i'm sure things will turn out ok for ya!

elchip: Weaver95: Did ya get that Obi? Or should I dumb this down some more for ya?

So what you're saying is, CRU's data sets aren't necessarily erroneous, and considering the numerous other satellite and surface data sets collected by numerous other organizations agree with CRU...

...we're either talking about a conspiracy that would level the wildest Truther dream, or CRU's data sets are not erroneous despite the unethical practices of its scientists... and this is a PR nightmare that does not actually change the facts of the situation.

elchip: he's part of the conspiracy.

elchip: Weaver95: Did ya get that Obi? Or should I dumb this down some more for ya?

So what you're saying is, CRU's data sets aren't necessarily erroneous, and considering the numerous other satellite and surface data sets collected by numerous other organizations agree with CRU...

...we're either talking about a conspiracy that would level the wildest Truther dream, or CRU's data sets are not erroneous despite the unethical practices of its scientists... and this is a PR nightmare that does not actually change the facts of the situation.

i'm saying that entire story about the CRU trashing their original dataset is pointless distraction. the real story is the pattern of highly unethical behavior shown in that email archive.

I hate you damn mongorians

Weaver95: i'm saying that entire story about the CRU trashing their original dataset is pointless distraction. the real story is the pattern of highly unethical behavior shown in that email archive.

I thought the real story was about how global warming is a conspiracy/scam pushed by scientists to make money for certain vested interests?

Or did you take your meds this morning?