Sensitive Documents Lifted from Hadley Climate Center

[Jaron]

[Jacob]

So the tree ring data in fact doesn't go up like the theory predicts.  That doesn't really help their case much.

One particular set of data.  It is neither new or unknown.  So I don't see how it harms their case much, whatever their case may be, beyond the enraged howlings of the superficially informed.

It is my understanding that when dealing with masses of data and statistics you do not, in fact, get unequivocal neat graphs like the ones we like to see on CNN and Fox and so on.

[Sheilbh]

I honestly feel that we've been pushing the whole debate of how we're destroying the planet too far, and pursuing policies based on that too far.

What policies in particular have gone too far?  What is too far and what do you think should be done, policy-wise, to deal with climate change?

[jimmy olsen]

Didn't we just have a thread about the UK courts determining that climate change proponents or groups, could be classified as a religion?   

Did we?

Can I see a link?

[Jaron]

Didn't we just have a thread about the UK courts determining that climate change proponents or groups, could be classified as a religion?   

Did we?

Can I see a link?

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2904.0

[Admiral Yi]

One particular set of data.  It is neither new or unknown.  So I don't see how it harms their case much, whatever their case may be, beyond the enraged howlings of the superficially informed.

It is my understanding that when dealing with masses of data and statistics you do not, in fact, get unequivocal neat graphs like the ones we like to see on CNN and Fox and so on.

Help! I'm being KRonned! 

It doesn't seem to be one particular set of data.  Your link shows that the decline of the tree ring data is a well known and documented phenomenon.  It also shows that they have an explanation for it.  My question then is, if the post 1960 data is off, how can they have faith in the pre 1960 tree ring data?

The relevance of your second paragraph to the topic eludes me.

[Jacob]

Help! I'm being KRonned! 

I'd never KRonn you 

It doesn't seem to be one particular set of data.  Your link shows that the decline of the tree ring data is a well known and documented phenomenon.  It also shows that they have an explanation for it.  My question then is, if the post 1960 data is off, how can they have faith in the pre 1960 tree ring data?

I don't know, though I expect it's not so much "have faith in" as "understand and explain".  I'm sure that if you dig a bit you can find it.  As they say "RU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure."

I don't really want to get drawn into debating something neither of us know very much about on technicalities we don't understand, but I thought the reason they have "faith" in the pre 1960s tree ring data is because it fits - the pre 1960s tree rings match very closely other records of temperatures where they exist.  It's only after 1960 that they don't match and, presumably it's been investigated and explained like they say.

The relevance of your second paragraph to the topic eludes me.

It was a "in real life and actual science you don't get 100% consistent data all the time, so a bit of divergence here and there is not necessarily a big deal" thing.  It was not aimed specifically at your narrow argument, but rather at some of the more hysterical conclusions and expectations that characterise the debate elsewhere.

[Faeelin]

It doesn't seem to be one particular set of data.  Your link shows that the decline of the tree ring data is a well known and documented phenomenon.  It also shows that they have an explanation for it.  My question then is, if the post 1960 data is off, how can they have faith in the pre 1960 tree ring data?

The relevance of your second paragraph to the topic eludes me.

I suggest you read the papers, if you're curious.

[Pedrito]

Didn't we just have a thread about the UK courts determining that climate change proponents or groups, could be classified as a religion?   

Did we?

Can I see a link?

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2904.0

L.

[Admiral Yi]

Agreed, and that's why I've become very wary and suspect at the extreme views on climate change, greening, all the whole movement. We all want greener, cleaner, but some of the groups pushing things seem to have it as their ideology, way of life, hatred of the way things are now, want everyone to radically change. And follow the money trail - some groups or industries stand to make a lot of money on the climate change industry.

We'll see where this goes. At least some in Congress are calling for an investigation.

Makes more sense to disect it here Berkut.  Note the bolded part, and the all important qualifier "some."  No where does KRonn say everybody who is green is a nutter, nor does he ever say the extremism of some of the groups proves that all climate change science is all bullshit.  That's all your fabrication.  He even goes on to repeat several times in this thread that he's only talking about some groups and some people.  But you don't pay attention, you go on with your STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN.

[Berkut]

He is clearly using the fact that some people are nutjobs in an attempt to dismiss the general case - otherwise, what is his point? Just that some individual people are nuts? That is exactly what *I* said - so how could that be a STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN? I think you are the one with the hay and torch here.

Further, what would the courts decision have to do with anything? No matter what they ruled, it would not change anything as far as someone nothing that some people involved in the climate change debate are a bit nuts, so why even bring it up to "prove" that in fact climate change proponents are a religion?

If all he had said was the bolded part, there would be no debate. But that isn't all he said, nor did he say it in some kind of vacuum, but rather in response to and as part of the debate about climate change, and directly in response to claims by others that somehow those who are raising these issues are motivated by some kind of irrational religious fervor.

He then followed that up with the observation that "we" are doing too much to combat climate change. I don't think it is a strawman to then attack his position based on the completely false claim that the UK courts have declared that climate change can be a religion, as if this was somehow meaningful to the debate in general.

[KRonn]

Just waiting to see where this all goes. I have reason to be skeptical about what has been presented to us, the over alarmism. We may be going through climate change, I'm not disputing that necessarily, but I'm very skeptical about the way we're going about dealing with it and fearing over it. I don't understand what's so hard about that to understand?

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.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Related Links

    * The great climate change science scandal

    * EU figurehead says climate change a myth

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU's director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data."

The CRU is the world's leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. "The CRU is basically saying, 'Trust us'. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science," he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life's work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is "unequivocally" linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

[Berkut]

Just waiting to see where this all goes.

No you aren't - you have already decided that this is motivated by religious fanaticism, we are "doing too much" already, and the "over alarmism". These are not the words of the careful skeptic, or someone "waiting to see where this all goes". I note a complete lack of skepticism from you towards the other side of the argument.

I have reason to be skeptical about what has been presented to us,

You do? What are those reasons? The only thing you have pointed out so far is your concern that the IPCC and those types might be religious fanatics - do you have some rational or objective reason to dismiss the scientific conclusions about global warming?

the over alarmism.

How do you know the alarmism is over? Maybe it is just right - maybe it is not nearly enough. You must have a very solid understanding of the science to be able to conclude that the "alarmism" is "over" - could you share this understanding with the rest of us?

Personally, I am pretty concerned, but have no real idea how concerned I ought to be. The numbers, even from the scientists, seem to be rather tenuous.

I would love to be able to share your certainty.

We may be going through climate change, I'm not disputing that necessarily, but I'm very skeptical about the way we're going about dealing with it and fearing over it.

What would be a better way for us to go about dealing with and fearing over it? What are you so skeptical about, especially considering that so far we have done almost nothing about it at all, and yet you feel the little that has been done is still too much?

I am not sure I understand your position here. Should we just do absolutely nothing - even stop studying it? I don't see how we could do less than we are other than by stopping doing what we are doing now - which is spend a small amount of money studying it, talking about what we should do, and actually doing nothing, yet you claim your "skepticism" demands that this is "too much".

I don't understand what's so hard about that to understand?

No worries, your position is perfectly easy to understand - what is hard to understand is you attempt to justify your own faith based response by attempting to pretend that your position is based on reason and "skepticism".

[Admiral Yi]

He is clearly using the fact that some people are nutjobs in an attempt to dismiss the general case - otherwise, what is his point? Just that some individual people are nuts? That is exactly what *I* said - so how could that be a STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN? I think you are the one with the hay and torch here.

This makes probably the third or fourth time, but the strawman is to take KRonn's "some groups" and turn it into "all groups."

Further, what would the courts decision have to do with anything? No matter what they ruled, it would not change anything as far as someone nothing that some people involved in the climate change debate are a bit nuts, so why even bring it up to "prove" that in fact climate change proponents are a religion?

I don't think it's a particularly killer point, but the court case strengthens the argument that *some* people are irrational when it comes to climate change.

If all he had said was the bolded part, there would be no debate. But that isn't all he said, nor did he say it in some kind of vacuum, but rather in response to and as part of the debate about climate change, and directly in response to claims by others that somehow those who are raising these issues are motivated by some kind of irrational religious fervor.

Up to your old tricks I see.  Speesh made the original comment about environmentalism being a modern religion.  No, he did not say that [all] those who are raising these issues are motivated by some kind of irrational religious fervor.  And KRonn in his response expressly said "some groups."

He then followed that up with the observation that "we" are doing too much to combat climate change. I don't think it is a strawman to then attack his position based on the completely false claim that the UK courts have declared that climate change can be a religion, as if this was somehow meaningful to the debate in general.

A person who thinks all climate change scientists are religious nutters would think that *anything* we do to combat climate change is wasted.  The corollary of "too much" is less would be better, not let's forget the whole thing.

[Tamas]

How convinient, they threw out the raw proof of their theory because they switched buildings. I mean sure that has to be standard modus operandi? Like lawyers throwing out evidences of their cases because they don't want to buy extra shelves.