Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
so what do you think about Climate-Gate?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Personally I hate the way a scientific issue has been politicized by both sides. I wish politics could stay out of science completely. Normally I say get the religious right away from evolution and the skeptical right out of global warming.
But we cannot cook the books. These scientists need to be held accountable (despite the way the emails were obtained). Scientists need to be open to new ideas, present the true data, abide by the law, and let a consensus develop over time. If the current temperatures don't reflect the computer models then lets go back to the drawing board. Some think the huge amounts of sulfur being emitted by China and India is now actually counterbalancing the warming effect. I will leave it to the scientists to sort out, but please scientists, just present the facts and not treat these papers as arguments/policy. |
Anonymous
| I missed this story - do you have a link to it? Thanks. |
Anonymous
|
Yes - shocking. Just can't trust a lot of 'science' now.
Just search 'global warming emails' and you'll see the story. |
Anonymous
The mainstream press seems to be taking the slant that it is disappointing, but hardly surprising, that scientists are subject to petty rivalry, personal ambition, and deviousness now and then, whereas commentators on the right think it's a major scandal. Is there anyone who is knowledgeable about the issue whose opinion has been changed by this? |
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Site Admin Online
Commentators on the right are just now recovering from conniption fits because Obama bowed to the emperor of Japan. I wouldn't be too concerned over what they are hyperventilating over now. That said, the OP of this thread takes a position with which it's hard to argue. Scientists shouldn't be cooking the books. Normally I'd be inclined to argue that one or two emails out of 3,000 can hardly be said to be representative. Also, who can say if the emails have been tampered with? But, given that the scientists involved seem to be calling for police action rather than offering explanations, I'm not feeling much need to defend them. Every profession has its hacks. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple within the global warming community have just been revealed. |
Anonymous
| Jeff - it appears these scientists (not just from the UK) had a specific agenda and made the "science" agree with their agenda. Plain and simple, and terribly disappointing. The shame is that the EPA and the Cap and Trade legislation were very much influenced by the phony science, and to our detriment. |
Anonymous
| To me the crux off the issue is whether the emails show scientists trying to suppress valid research whose results they don't like, or scientists objecting to the publication of inferior research that is tailored to give certain results. In one case they are cooking the data, in the other they are opposing cooked data. But it may be hard to tell the difference. |
Anonymous
|
From what I have read...
1. The raw statistical data was suspect - over 50 reporting stations that don't exist? 2. What raw statistical data they had was either not included in the models OR altered before inclusion in the models when some results showed a cooling period. 3. The email dump was "official" email only; no personal stuff included. It is hypothized that is was prepped for a FOIA (or UK equivalent) request that was eventually denied. So, where do we go from here? Forward with Cap and Trade when it appears clear that the underlying science is unreliable. It may be right, but how do we know given the level of questionable research and modeling? |
Anonymous
This is purely for information, not to cast doubt: Can you let us know where you read this. At this point I am suspicious of everything I read, since so much profit and politics is riding on this. |
Anonymous
I think it is more complicated than that, as my understanding is that these scientists are responsible for a lot of the key work on climate change, and if they are hacks, much of the science will need to be revisited. Having said that, now that this stuff is public, a lot of eyes will be looking at it -- if they were manipulating data or did anything grossly incompetent, it won't be a secret for long, and if they weren't, the science will be on even firmer footing than before. Time will tell. My personal view is that it is becoming pretty clear that the quality of data and science in this area is not ready for prime time in terms of being a good basis for the multi-trillion dollar costs associated with meaningful CO2 reductions, and think it would make sense for the whole field to get a hard look over the next couple of years -- the science now has huge policy implications, and we need to be sure it is being done as well as it possibly can be. |
Anonymous
|
By the way, for those who are curious, the best source I have found for the "they're hacks" side (not a direct quote) is www.climateaudit.org (running very slow these days), and the best source on the "did nothing wrong" side is www.realclimate.org.
I've been loosely following the issues for some time -- they guys at climateaudit have been banging the drums for more disclosure for years -- and there is a lot of very technical inside-baseball stuff at both of those sites. It's a hard debate to understand -- my own view is that I'm glad this stuff is in the public now, where truth will ultimately carry the day. |
Anonymous
| What I don't understand is why government doesn't focus on other environmental issues instead of one with so much controversy. We know that ground and water pollution is a huge problem that affects our drinking supply and vegetation. Why not focus on this? |
Anonymous
|
Curiouser and curiouser...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. " Does this sound like the actions of diligent scientific researchers, or of a group with something to hide? We are supposed to take it as an article of faith that they were scrupulously honest, unfailingly accurate? |
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Site Admin Online
At first glance, this sounds like a group of people with something to hide. Strangely reminiscent of the Bush Whitehouse's emails. 
On the other hand, you didn't mention that the data was disposed of in the 1980s when the CRU was moving into a new building. Back then, there wasn't such a focus on global warming and the magnetic tapes probably took up a lot of space. There is no suggestion that the data was thrown out to prevent its exposure. I think this entire controversy has shown some shortcomings within one scientific institution. But, the suggestion coming from some quarters that this somehow undermines the entire theory of global warming is clearly overwrought. |
Anonymous
I think a lot of the data was actually stored on paper, not even tapes. |