iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climate Email Leak: University Of East Anglia Slams Apparent New Leak

RAPHAEL G. SATTER   11/22/11 07:40 PM ET   AP

LONDON — The British university whose stolen emails caused a global climate science controversy in 2009 says those behind the breach have apparently released a second and potentially far larger batch of old messages.

University of East Anglia spokesman Simon Dunford said that while academics didn't yet have the chance to examine all the roughly 5,000 emails apparently dumped into the public domain Tuesday, a small sample seen by the university "appears to be genuine."

The university said in a statement that the emails did not appear to be the result of a new breach. Instead, the statement said that the emails appeared to have been stolen two years ago and held back until now "to cause maximum disruption" to the imminent U.N. climate talks next week in Durban, South Africa.

If that is confirmed, the timing and nature of the leak would follow the pattern set by the so-called "Climategate" emails, which caught prominent scientists stonewalling critics and discussing ways to keep opponents' research out of peer-reviewed journals.

Those hostile to mainstream climate science claimed the exchanges proved that the threat of global warming was being hyped, and their publication helped destabilize the failed U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, which followed several weeks later.

Climategate also dealt a blow to the reputation of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which is one of the world's leading centers for the study of how world temperatures have varied over time.

Although a host of reviews have since vindicated the unit's science, some of its practices – in particular efforts to hide data from opponents – have come under strong criticism. The university says it is now much more open about what it does.

Excerpts quoted on climate skeptic websites appeared to show climate scientists talking in conspiratorial tones about ways to promote their agenda and freeze out those they disagree with. There are several mentions of "the cause" and discussions of ways to shield emails from freedom of information requests.

Penn State University professor Michael Mann – a prominent player in the earlier controversy whose name also appears in the latest leak – said on Twitter that "the cause" he was referring to was the cause of "communicating science in face of massive disinformation effort."

In an email exchange with the AP he described Tuesday's development as "a truly pathetic episode," blaming agents of the fossil fuel industry for "smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails."

He said that the real story behind the leak was "an attempt to dig out 2-year-old turkey from Thanksgiving '09. That's how desperate climate change deniers have become."

Bob Ward, with the London School of Economics' Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said in an email that he wasn't surprised by the leak.

"The selective presentation of old email messages is clearly designed to mislead the public and politicians about the strength of the evidence for man-made climate change," he said. "But the fact remains that there is very strong evidence that most the indisputable warming of the Earth over the past half century is due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities."

The source of the latest leaked emails was unclear. The perpetrator of the original hack has yet to be unmasked, although British police have said their investigation is still active.

___

Associated Press Writers Jill Lawless in London, Malcolm Ritter in New York, and Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed to this report.

___

Online:

University of East Anglia: http://www.uea.ac.uk

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

LONDON — The British university whose stolen emails caused a global climate science controversy in 2009 says those behind the breach have apparently released a second and potentially far larger ...
LONDON — The British university whose stolen emails caused a global climate science controversy in 2009 says those behind the breach have apparently released a second and potentially far larger ...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,482
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:53 AM on 11/28/2011
Orkneygal Again Exposed As A Science-Denier Propagandist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wow!"

Orkneygal parrots and hypes a cherry-picked quote [1] taken out of context that - when placed in proper context - means nothing of importance.

First off, the email [2] that cherry-picked quote is taken from makes clear that Dr. Ken Biffra, the scientist under personal attack [3] by prominent "skeptical" blogger Steve McIntyre was at the undergoing significant health issues. Thus the author of the email did not wish to disturb Biffra with respect to responding to the personal attack, and was thus consulting other scientists with expertise on the specific issue as to how to technically address the attack in a public response.

Second, public and technically-detailed responses to McIntyre's personal attack followed within days after that email was sent, both from RealClimate and directly from Dr. Biffra himself. [4]

In other words: there's no "there" there, and Orkneygal is once again exposed as a relentless denier propagandist who is once again trying to mislead the public.

Who woulda thunk it.

---------------
[1] "So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimat­e."

[2] http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2693

[3] Steve McIntyre directly accuses Dr. Ken Biffra of personal dishonesty: "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result."

[4] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:28 PM on 11/28/2011
Dear Orkneygal,

If -- as you would have HuffPo readers believe -- the leakers of these emails were "whistleblowers" from within the climate science community, then why did they hold these emails back for two years before releasing them?

In other words, if these hackers really viewed releasing these emails as a battle for truth, then why didn't they release everything at once in order to get it all reviewed and sorted out?

Please answer the question instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

-------------------------------------------
Additional note: If the hackers leaking these emails instead intended them to be used as fodder in a protracted distracting PR battle, then holding some of them back and releasing them two years later makes sense - it serves to keep the PR distraction going.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:22 AM on 11/28/2011
Wow!

HT to Girma over at Dr Curry's Truth friendly blog on this revelation.

"So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate."

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2693
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:11 AM on 11/28/2011
WOW! L@@K!! Orkney is shilling again.

This time Orkney is trying to hijack HuffPost readers and redirect you over to an amateur site trying to stir up the climategate issue. Anything to disrupt any possible discussion of climate issues on Huffpost. Orkney's actions are entirely consistent with the professional denier campaign to confuse the climate issue.

Note that Orkney never ever has time to discuss science. Orkney also never ever has time to stand and discuss her drive-by spamming.

Flagged for spamming and attempted hijacking.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
09:16 AM on 11/28/2011
Truthy!
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:59 AM on 11/28/2011
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:33 PM on 11/27/2011
Willis has eviscerated Dr Jones magnificently.

Here's a snippet.

"When the emails are read in order, it is obvious that you destroyed a host of relevant emails once people gave you a nudge and a wink. You were surprisingly blatant in your emails regarding the fact that you were destroying important documents under the guise of “housekeeping”. You really should read your own words again, they make it quite clear that you deleted emails under false pretences.

But that’s not the worst of it. The egregious part was contained in the email you somehow neglected to mention in your recent UEA attempt at self-exoneration. That was the email wherein you counseled deleting evidentiary emails directly covered by David Holland’s FOI request:

'Mike [Mann],

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise… Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.

Cheers, Phil'

You not only destroyed emails subject to an FOI request that contained the evidence of your misdeeds. You warned all of your friends to do likewise. Gene Wahl admitted that he destroyed emails at Michael Mann’s behest."

http://tinyurl.com/brl6a32
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
06:01 PM on 11/27/2011
WHAM
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:03 AM on 11/28/2011
hey FUMES..

speaking of your relentless science denial..

when are you going to stop denying basic science..

such as for example your repeated, patently absurd denial that downward infrared radiation exists?

you'll never understand even very basic climate science..

until you stop denying science.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:57 AM on 11/28/2011
Dear Orkneygal,

Got proper context, as opposed to copy-and-p­asting quote-mining and unsubstantiated accusations from a blogger at a science denier blog?

Of course you don't, providing still more evidence that you are a fake "skeptic" / propagandist.

Speaking of:

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Robert M "Bob" Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?* 

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?

Please finally answer the question, Orkneygal, instead of continuing to run away from it.

[ Que: continued silence from "truth seeker" Orkneygal. ]

------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:55 PM on 11/27/2011
So, beyond the climatologists' consensus:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf ;

We also have 11 separate “Climategate” exonerations, 13 “hockey stick” corroborations:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/climate-email-leak-university-east-anglia_n_1107929_120351269.html ;

And a set of billionaires with a collective net worth of ~1/3 of a $Trillion dollars, who've acted on a/o publicly stated their belief in global warming:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/climatologist-phil-jones-speaks_n_1110389_120093635.html ;

Plus separate statements by Shell, Exxon, Chevron, Walmart, Apple, Ikea, Tesco, the DoD, CIA, 200 CEOs, and major investment groups collectively controlling $20 Trillion in assets that they believe global warming is a fact of life:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/climatologist-phil-jones-speaks_n_1110389_120093380.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:43 PM on 11/27/2011
11 separate “Climatega­te” exoneratio­ns, 13 “hockey stick” corroborat­ions

1. Feb2010, RA-10 Inquiry Report: Concerning Allegation­s of Research Misconduct Against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Department of Meteorolog­y, Pennsylvan­ia State University

“Finding 1: After careful considerat­ion of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participat­ed in, directly or indirectly­, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data.“

“Finding 2: After careful considerat­ion of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participat­ed in, directly or indirectly­, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, informatio­n and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparatio­n of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4. “

Finding 3. After careful considerat­ion of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participat­ed in, directly or indirectly­, any misuse of privileged or confidenti­al informatio­n available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar.

http://www­.research.­psu.edu/or­p/Findings­_Mann_Inqu­iry.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:02 PM on 11/27/2011
2. March 2010, UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

“...insofa­r as we have been able to consider accusation­s of dishonesty­—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”— we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunat­e episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington­, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”.

http://www­.publicati­ons.parlia­ment.uk/pa­/cm200910/­cmselect/c­msctech/38­7/387i.pdf

3. April 2010, Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel, UK:

"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractic­e in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganis­ed researcher­s who were ill-prepar­ed for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal."

http://www­.publicati­ons.parlia­ment.uk/pa­/cm200910/­cmselect/c­msctech/38­7/387i.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:03 PM on 11/27/2011
4. May 2010, Netherland­s Environmen­tal Assessment Agency:

“The PBL Netherland­s Environmen­tal Assessment Agency has investigat­ed the scientific foundation­s for the IPCC summary conclusion­s of the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 on projected regional climate-ch­ange impacts, at the request of the Dutch Minister for the Environmen­t. Overall the summary conclusion­s are considered well founded, none have been found to contain any significan­t errors. The Working Group II contributi­on to the Fourth Assessment Report shows ample observatio­nal evidence of regional climate change impacts, which have been projected to pose substantia­l risks to most parts of the world, under increasing temperatur­es.“

http://www­.pbl.nl/si­tes/defaul­t/files/cm­s/publicat­ies/500216­002.pdf

5. June 2010 RA-10 Final Investigat­ion Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann, The Pennsylvan­ia State University June 4, 2010,

“The Investigat­ory Committee, after careful review of all available evidence, determined that there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Dept. of Meteorolog­y, The Pennsylvan­ia State University­. More specifical­ly, the Investigat­ory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participat­e in, directly or indirectly­, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting­, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities­.”

http://liv­e.psu.edu/­pdf/Final_­Investigat­ion_Report­.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dawg1000
ⒹⓇ. ⓇⓄⓃ ⓅⒶⓊⓁ
11:49 AM on 11/27/2011
A partial list of expanding glaciers

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
01:18 PM on 11/27/2011
Cool.

Now where's the list of declining glaciers?
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:58 PM on 11/27/2011
Taffy appears to expand also, if you start warming it. But really it is only stretching because of the added heat.

Dawg gives us a list of 'expanding glaciers.' When the rest of the world knows full well that the ice is mostly melting, this list is only a curiosity.

No doubt the link goes to a bogus propaganda site. These clever deniers, creating patriotic sounding or scientific sounding links as though that stands in place of real science.

Dawg, you have been taken in again. In order to establish expanding glaciers as a scientific concept, you would have to come up with a list of real scientific papters on the subject. Somehow I don't think deniers can do that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dawg1000
ⒹⓇ. ⓇⓄⓃ ⓅⒶⓊⓁ
11:44 AM on 11/27/2011
Climategate is a vindication for the scientific method because it reminds us that individual scientists are just as corruptible as politicians.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:46 PM on 11/27/2011
Climategate was refuted soundly, numerous times. That deniers keep dredging it up suggests the denier campaign, funded by Big Energy, knows who to target to keep chanting the C word. Heartland is staffed by professional propagandists. They know who the pitchfork crowd is, who will pick up on the key words and keep repeating them. Dawg you have been trained.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:02 PM on 11/26/2011
Dear Shadow013,

You continue to make unsupported claims, even after you were called on it downthread.

For example, you claimed downthread without supporting evidence that Carl Sagan said "major variations" in CO2 "will have only minor greenhouse effects".

When I provided you a video of Carl Sagan wherein he says the exact opposite of what you claim he said

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ5u-l9Je0s

you not only failed to acknowledge the video but you moreover claimed that you were paraphrasing Sagan "directly from a peer reviewed paper published in 'Science'."

When I then asked you to provide the purported 'Science' paper and the Sagan quote that you were purportedly "paraphrasing" you failed to do so and instead tried to change the subject, while also again refusing to acknowledge the irrefutable proof I provided to you that Carl Sagan in fact said the exact opposite of what you claim he said.

My question to you, Shadow013, is this:

With a record like that, why should anyone trust what you say without supporting verification?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:52 PM on 11/26/2011
Dear Shadow013,

Perhaps you could also answer this question that you asked right after you claimed that Carl Sagan said the exact opposite of what he in fact actually said about global warming:

"Question is, why should I consider Sagan's ideas fit for the trash bin?"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
02:01 PM on 11/26/2011
It's simply appalling when the GRU (& other Globull Warming acolytes) cannot keep their fraudulent, BS emails secret. Those damned whistle-blowers. Don't they know that whistle-blowers are only acceptable when outing BIG BIZ not when outing bogus snake oil scientists!!!!

Nice article in Science - "Global warming much less serious than thought - new science. We're looking at just a couple of degrees with double CO2"

It just keeps getting worse for the acolytes.......................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
09:24 PM on 11/26/2011
Whistleblowers, right.

Whistleblowers don't try to hack into the RealClimate servers, then upload the documents to Russian sites. Whistleblowers don't hold onto documents and parcel them out in dribs and drabs timed to disrupt conferences. Whistleblowers don't withhold 98% of the documents they have.

These weren't whistleblowers, they were paid hackers. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Only liars call them whistleblowers.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:19 AM on 11/27/2011
lies, damned lies, statistics, and wishes

Typical drive by slander by the serial denier Wishy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
02:52 PM on 11/27/2011
lies, damned lies, Mickey Mann & his cute Hockey Schtick......................
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
01:51 PM on 11/26/2011
Yep, it's a disgrace that the CRU can't keep their fraudulent, bogus BS secret. Those damned whistleblowers................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc&feature=fvst
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:09 PM on 11/26/2011
Gotta love recreational (professional?) slander, and substance-free climate science denier propaganda videos.

Or not.

Oh and that "whistleblower" thing:

If -- as you Wishy would have HuffPo readers believe -- the leakers of these emails were really "whistleblowers" from within the climate science community as opposed to illegal hackers, then why did they hold these emails back for two years before releasing them?

In other words, if the hackers really viewed releasing these emails as a battle for truth, then why did they not release everything at once in order to get it all reviewed and sorted out?

Do tell, Wishy.

-------------------------------------------
Additional note: If the hackers leaking these emails instead intended them to be used as fodder in a distracting political PR battle then holding some of them back and releasing them two years later makes sense - it helps keep the political PR distraction going.
03:15 PM on 11/26/2011
This is not the work of a whistleblower.

A whistleblower generally respects their profession and tends to act in its best interest by bringing to light activities or misconduct that may compromise the integrity of that profession.

A whistleblower wouldn't release a pile of cherry-picked emails into the hands of a denier community who has displayed only profound ignorance and irresponsibility towards the climate science profession. Furthermore, a whistleblower would not time the "leak" to coincide with crucial climate talks for maximum disruption, a whistleblower would do the opposite.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:09 PM on 11/26/2011
Banana Republican: "This is 'climate change', not 'national security' issues."

You again seem confused, Banana.

The Pentagon - Global Warming Is Real and a Destabilizing Force 
(2010 Quadrennial Defense Review):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States...

Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas... DoD has undertaken environmental security cooperative initiatives with foreign militaries that represent a nonthreatening way of building trust, sharing best practices on installations management and operations, and developing response capacity.

http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
02:06 PM on 11/26/2011
"Global warming much less serious than thought - new science. We're looking at just a couple of degrees with double CO2"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/25/runaway_warming_unlikely/

Globull Warming Alarmism is becoming significantly more challenging now that their credibility is crumbling.......................
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
03:27 PM on 11/26/2011
So you say wish. So you say. Yet all you can come up with is a tabloid reference. We'll use that to wrap fish heads in. Thanks.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:24 PM on 11/26/2011
You seem confused again, Wishy. 

Though I can see how -- you don't understand the science, and you are a fake "skeptic" who doesn't apply real skepticism but instead gullibly swallows and parrots mass media / tabloid stories that conform to your pre-determined political agenda.

In 2007 the IPCC said the climate "sensitivity" would likely be anywhere between 2 and 4.5 °C; this new (ahem) modeling study puts the sensitivity at the lower end of that IPCC range.  

Which is to say, that "Global warming much less serious than thought" characterization that you Wishy parroted is deceptive science denier propaganda.

Who woulda think it.

Moreover, there are unusual aspects about this study which require further investigation before the conclusions of the study can be accepted, as the authors themselves point out.

"[The report's lead author] Schmittner agrees it is too early to draw firm conclusions. Individual climate models all have their own quirks, so he wants to try the experiment with several models to find out if others repeat the result."

The report's lead author also says, "even if we get a smaller temperature rise than we expected, the knock-on effects would still be severe."

Got that, Wishy? Here, I'll repeat it for you:

"Even if we get a smaller temperature rise than we expected, THE knock-on EFFECTS WOULD STILL BE SEVERE."

[ Added emphasis mine. ]

HTH.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21212-co2-may-not-warm-the-planet-as-much-as-thought.html
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:28 AM on 11/26/2011
As to the supposed gullibility of believers in human aided global climate change which has been proclaimed by skeptics, please answer me this... which position is more gullible…. To believe that highly intelligent scientists who make their livings constantly trying to probe the weakness of each other’s arguments are scamming the world…. Or that the multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry is making a last stand, efficiently spending well documented millions of dollars to influence public opinion with innuendo, slander, scam, hoax, misdirection, brute thievery and massive advertising psychology honed by decades of research and billions of dollars of profit? And do world leading fossil fuel exporters like Russia never act thuggishly? You decide.
09:36 AM on 11/26/2011
And why was Enron an early advocate of carbon trading? Where is Goldman Sachs? The vampire squid will make money any way it can, hiding behind popular causes. It would be are relief to talk science instead of big money. The profit motive taints both sides but doesn't lead to honesty or appropriate solutions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
10:28 AM on 11/26/2011
What "profit motive" do the scientists have? How are they going to become richer by lying about global warming? What "profit motive" is sufficient to convince 98% of climate scientists to do so?

And what is the "profit motive" of the 85% of ALL scientists who agree with the fundamental premises of human-caused global warming? The vast majority of them don't have anything to do with climate research and have nothing at all to gain. Are they stupid, or liars, or what?

Sorry, but the "profit motive" simply doesn't fly as an explanation of why climate research almost without exception supports the proposition that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to a changed climate.

If you're looking for an explanation, I'd look at basic physics, not Mammon.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
11:50 AM on 11/26/2011
You are trying to switch the topic.

Here is the topic. Before we can do anything about excess planetary warming from excessive use of combustion by a human population of seven billion people, we have to first recognize the problem and evaluate its severity. There are myriad combinations of solutions once the problem is recognized. Focusing on one solution is a red herring when people haven't even agreed that there is a problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
givemtheirwish
Science is the belief in ignorance of "experts"
02:10 PM on 11/26/2011
Poor BP. Alarmism is now outed as BS (not BP). Don't worry though your masters will soon have some other Alarmist program on which to concentrate your gullibility..........................
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:27 PM on 11/26/2011
Poor Wishy. So gullible that he has been mislead by his climate science denier "allies" again.

Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
07:25 AM on 11/27/2011
No "ism" involved here. Just your unfamiliarity with science, your fear of the future, your continually being lead around by the ring through your nose.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:22 AM on 11/26/2011
To anyone who thinks that climate change is not a national security issue, look up "Climate Change Impacts on US Naval Operations" – Admiral David Titley .

US Navy Admiral Titley has made some good points about dealing with climate skeptics. One I like is along these lines...skeptics seem to believe that 3000 academics can hide a secret agenda....without any of the multiple layers of security that the military uses including but not limited to polygraphs, sworn statements, pledges to secrecy, criminal penalties, public humiliation, etc. Academics who love to talk and communicate, who would probably win a Nobel Prize if they could really overturn the apple cart with a provable counter theory to human-caused global warming are not likely to have the motivation or resources to hide something like that. It betrays a real lack of imagination and of understanding of humans to think that a massive conspiracy on that scale would not be blown wide open by now. Instead, we have some stolen, out of context email phrases which, in the past two years, have all been shown to be indicative of little more than rudeness.