Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 11/23/2011 2:52:53 PM PST by neverdem
About 5,000 emails by scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been made public. Climate skeptics see it as a repeat of a similar e-mail release in 2009 that cast doubts on the objectivity and science of warming advocates – and an opportunity.
And, they've already adopted a name for the new release, tying it to the 2009 scandal: Climategate 2.0.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, says the latest e-mails – if authentic – could debunk the Obama administration's justification for imposing costly, crippling regulations on the nation's businesses:
"Remember, the Obama EPA is basing these regulations on its endangerment finding, which relies on the flawed science of the IPCC. Now a recent report by the EPA Inspector General has revealed that EPA cut corners in the process leading up to the endangerment finding."
If legitimate, "Climategate 2.0 emails is just one more reason to halt the Obama EPA's job killing global warming agenda," Sen. Inhofe (R-Okla.) concludes.
Likewise, Marc Morano, noted warming-theory skeptic and publisher of Climate Depot, proclaims the latest release of warming-theory scientist e-mails "another victory for science." Morano also see Climategate 2.0 as draining the last vestiges of vitality out of the warming movement.
The ultimate impact of this release may not be known for quite some time, as content and authenticity of each one of these five thousand e-mails is scrutinized.
Still, one thing is certain: the e-mails provide a new opportunity for pro-business, anti-hysteria advocates to draw attention to the question of whether or not the public should trust the findings of those who seek to profit, financially or politically, from fear-mongering in the name of science.
Another Victory For Science Ping
Does this mean that Algore has to return the 100 million or so bucks he’s scammed from the morons who fell for his BS?
Yeah, right. ROFLMAO!
it would appear that Mann’s own verbage proves this is a “cause” for him, not unbiased scientific research.
The republicans will do nothing as usual, just mimic demise, oh my.
“Look it moved!”
Time to club the rotten corpse of the AGW hoax one last time as there are still true believers parading it around and making it move by poking it every once in awhile with a stick....A hockey stick.
I have a feeling that if Gore, Hanson, Mann and every other high priest of the Cult of AWG all said that it was a hoax, a fraud and a con to get money there would be some that would still believe that AGW is real. Glaciers in Miami would not cause them to second guess their religious belief in AWG.
Can we put algore in jail for massive fraud?
Pray for America
You have to be a brain dead Democrat or RINO to believe the AGW crap! As soon as they open their mouths and confirm that they believe in AGW, I think to myself: “If they would have kept their mouth shut I would have suspected them to be stupid, but by speaking they confirmed it”!
Meanwhile, NASA managers from the science mission bring in propagandist to teach their researcher’s how to better inform the public of the warming threat and combat “disinformation” from skeptics (your tax dollars at work):
“Communicating Climate Change
Employees are invited to a talk on effective practices in climate change communication hosted by the Science Directorate. Join us on November 14 at 10 a.m. in the Reid Center for a lecture by Susan Hassol, director of Climate Communication.
Susan Hassol’s talk will include up-to-date information on what the public thinks about climate change and will address problems with how scientists generally communicate about climate change and offer high-level suggestions for improvement. It will address both what we say and how we say it, dealing with framing, messaging, psychological and cultural issues, the value of narrative, and questions involving language.
Susan Hassol is an award-winning communicator of climate science who has worked for over 20 years to communicate the science of climate change to a wide variety of audiences. She has written and edited numerous high-level reports, testified before Congress, written an HBO documentary, appeared on national radio and television shows, and spoken widely to leaders in various fields about climate change.
For more on Susan Hassol and Climate Communication, please see http://climatecommunication.org";
You know, Inhofe is strong on this issue (for a politician); so, I'm hesitant to criticize him on anything he says about Global Warming. BUT, ... if these are the actual thoughts of the person in Congress who is our strongest fighter against the hoax that is Global Warming; ... then we're in serious trouble.
"IF legitimate, ... (the emails) COULD, debunk ..."
Nothing further -- not these e-mails, nor any undisclosed scientific observation, nor a full admission of guilt by all perpetrators in the courts of law and public opinion -- are necessary to "debunk" this alarmist/socialist/communist untested and untestable hypothesis.
The idea that "debunking" is required should be offensive to any rational, sensate, modern human being. There is not now, has there ever been, ANY credible evidence of the "theory" of "Global Warming".
I have also yet to see any evidence that any evidence (no, I didn't mis-type), could be used to convice communists (a.k.a. Obama, Democrats, RINOs, etc) to ease back in the slightest in their mad dash to crush the free market -- and any free society -- with industry-crippling laws and regulation based on this imaginary "theory".
I've never seen anything that might in the slightest tend to suggest that "Global Warming" might, maybe, possibly NOT be incontrovertible HOLY Truth, that any Warmist or Communist would even acknowledge ... much less listen to and reconsider their entire belief structure because of.
As much as I may admire his gumption, especially on this issue; Jim Inhofe may simply be too ignorant and lacking in intellect to remain in the Senate. IF, that is, he's going to remain our "go to guy" on Global Warming.
Global Warming on Free Republic
Ping!
For more selections, go to the original batch of selections posted here. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/
The original files (173 MB) of all the e-mails released here: http://globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/FOIA2011.zip
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.
<0170> Jones:
Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.
<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
<1790> Lorenzoni:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and evolving phenomenon
<3062> Jones:
We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.
<1485> Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.
<2428> Ashton/co2.org:
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media
<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [medieval warm period] go away in Greenland.
<1682> Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
<5315> Jenkins/MetO:
would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
<2292> Jones:
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.
<4693> Crowley:
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships
<2733> Crowley:
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.
<0953> Jones:
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH [northern hemisphere] temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
<4944> Haimberger:
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
<4938> Jenkins/MetO:
By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI [urban heat island effect] has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
<4789> Wigley:
there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets – we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].
Jones: The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.
<4165> Jones:
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
<3373> Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
<4758> Osborn:
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD [maximum latewood density] has a non temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
<4369> Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
<2132> Wigley:
I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse skeptics have extreme religious views.
<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]: [...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We must pray that they pick up that message.
<5131> Shukla/IGES:
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<0850> Barnett:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
<5066> Hegerl:
[IPCC AR5 models] So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
<4443> Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.
<3594> Berger:
Phil, Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.
<4184> Jones:
[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it’s been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
<2440> Jones:
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
<1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
Thanx for the ping annie laurie & neverdem !
There is no victory so long as the perpetrators are alive and functioning
So long as they are functioning, they are a danger to society
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.