A new batch of nearly 230,000 illegally hacked emails is up online in the same old places the last batch went up in November of 2009. It seems like old times. Jeff Id, the Air Vent blogger, has a batch up again, as do other climate deniers. And get this -- they all appear to predate the 2009 release and so are just more of the same, held back until now.
What's most remarkable is that the emails are so -- well, normal. Here are the shocking -- and I mean shocking -- things that climate scientists are emailing each other, according to Id:
We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.
Wow. That's a shocker. A scientist saying they need to communicate the uncertainty in their data. Which, by the way, they do in every study they publish. It's a required part of science.
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
Geez. Another shocker. A leading expert of temperature reconstructions is skeptical of temperature reconstructions but still lets the data guide his ultimate conclusions. Isn't that sort of skepticism what we want? And oh, by the way, the National Academies has done extensive work that -- huh -- confirmed proxy data temperature reconstructions and even extended the data set.
This is a bit like the loony old argument that it's just a theory -- when in science a "theory" is the one explanation that's supported by all the experiments and data we've accumulated to date.
The illegally hacked personal emails go on like this for reams and reams of mind-numbing back and forth that even the climate deniers that are happily hosting them say they haven't had time to read -- they just do text searches for any damning-sounding words they can think of, pull up those highlights, take the ones that seem to confirm their position out of context, and direct attention to them.
And the mainstream media are supposed to now lap this new manufactured controversy up like stupid puppies.
In 2009, the "climategate" hack "coincidentally" happened just before the Copenhagen climate summit and the build-up to the climate bill in congress. In yet another strange coincidence of timing, this new theft just happens to come just before the upcoming U.N. climate conference in South Africa and on the heels of the IPCC's new report linking the increase in extreme weather events to climate change, together with the BEST study.
BEST, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, was run by physicist Richard Muller, a climate skeptic. To the dismay of the energy industry-funded denialist community, after crunching 1.2 billion data points Muller found last month that in fact climate scientists have been right all along and their data is solid -- the Earth is getting warmer at a very rapid pace.
Muller published a striking op-ed about it in the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal. The Journal published the op-ed online but, not surprisingly considering their owner, they decided not to run it in their print edition. Muller said the time for skepticism is over. Murdoch-owned Fox News was a major promoter of the last climate email scandal-that-wasn't, and a Fox executive actually ordered Fox News reporters to slant their coverage of climate change to favor deniers.
So now that the science is getting even stronger, it's time to redirect the public's attention with renewed personal attacks and illegally hacked emails that cherry pick quotes, take them out of context, and try to spin them and confuse the public. What the heck -- it worked last time.
After the last climate email scandal, six separate investigations found that there was no scandal, it was cooked up out of nothing, and the underlying data was solid. The only question is will reporters allow themselves to be manipulated by energy industry front groups and fringe denialist cranks blowing smoke and slime to further promote spin and obfuscation on the largest policy challenges facing the United States? Or will they do their job and report what's really happening based on research, data and investigation?
Because multiple independent lines of data accumulated by thousands of researchers over the last fifty years all point in the same direction and even some leading climate skeptics are now admitting that and reversing their previous positions.
That's not going to change no matter what the random scientist happens to say in the odd personal email.
Get Shawn Lawrence Otto's new book: Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, Starred Kirkus Review; Starred Publishers Weekly review. Like him on Facebook. Join ScienceDebate.org to get the presidential candidates to debate science.
Follow Shawn Lawrence Otto on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shawnotto
Anuradha Vittachi: Climategate Hacker Scores Own Goal
If you want to start, please read, Dessler, Andrew Emory,; Parson , Edward: “The science and politics of global climate change” ISBN:0780521737401 Call number QC903 .D47 2010.
Dessler is a leading scientists in this area.
In this book he promote main ideas, why scientists of climate change think that GHG are responsible for climate change.
Google Richard Lindzen and read his articles about science of fear (Science of climate change).
In my opinion, computer models can't evaluate all properties of water and their influence in every square meter of area, and every meter, by meter high till upper troposphere. It is economically impossible.
If you will look on all properties of water, they actually cooling air, despite water vapor is GHG.
Positive feedback, from water vapor, which promote scientists of climate change, again, in my opinion, is a huge mistake of this science, which can't provide reasonable explanation for climate change.
Precipitation (5°×5° and 2.5°×3.75° gridded versions) ?
What mean "gridded version for temperature and precipitation?
The CRU temperature set is only one of several. Even if CRU were taken completely out of the picture, there are several other research teams that build global temp datasets. Their data and their models are publicly available.
For a discussion of this "concealing data" bs, see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/climate-scientist-bashing/
Precipitation (5°×5° and 2.5°×3.75° gridded versions) "
Could you, please, explain, what these data mean?
To begin to understand climate science, go to www.realclimate.org and click on "Start here."
When you look at raw temperature data, keep in mind that it shows not the actual temperatures, but the deviation from the historic average temperature for the station in question. So the data might be in the form of -.1 or +2, meaning that it is 1/10 of a degree less than the average or 2 degrees above the average.
(you know you wanted to hear it!)
I see the BBC has been busted for bias again on these, but no mention of it here....
Better check on that Muller study one more time, there might have been new developments...
We must to understand, that no one models could put ALL properties of water, which actually cool the air.
We must to understand, that today political science of climate change came with wrong enemy-GHG, and therefore with wrong, very dangerous solutions, to cut them down.
This article seems to concentrate on attacking and attempting to impugn those releasing this information..and minimizing it's importance.
Sorry.. but i don't find that convincing.
So.. how about factually and logically addressing the serious questions that the content of these released -mails appartently raises?
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:
(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
You will have to do a MUCH better job than you did above if you wish to satisfactorily answer these questions, Mr otto.
His characterizations of these emails are worse than worthless. And his understanding of the science, and of the way science operates, is simply laughable.
Surely you can do better than this!
Oh, wait, you can't, because in reality, you have no substantive case.
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:
(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."
...so you attack the messenger.
Who do you think you are fooling with that attempt to distract?
Serious questions and implications are raised by these e-mails.. and I don't see you answering them.
Bluster and hot air are a poor susbstitution for a credible explanation.
That is a reason why scientists put only parameters of water (mostly water vapor and reflectionof direct sun radiation back to space.
All human activities depend from energy, which in most cases release carbon dioxide.
Reasons for climate change are reduction of evaporation on continents and reduction of reflection of direct sun radiation on them.
It correlate with carbon dioxide, which easy to put in calculation.
Undersea release of Methane gas ? Freaking fracking? Red tides?
Oh....wait....
Jones and Mann et al are not the only game in town. There is a large international community of climate scientists, and about a dozen COMPETING models. These models, though the deniers love to throw doubt on them, are quite useful, and have accounted for past events very well. ALL of the many groups around the world are saying the same thing, more or less. If there were any real reason to doubt that this is happening, there would be much more disagreement among these many independent efforts. But there is not.
QED.
Again.. you make a blatantly untrue assertion.
And again.. it's easy to disprove your claim that there is not disagreement in the scientific community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
You don't help your case..or your credibility by making broad generalizations to the degree that they are outright lies.
..or perhaps you just want to claim ignorance?
Those of us not caught up in a childish dichotomy see it for what it is. Willful encouragement of dissent in order to divide the majority against itself.
Congrats. You won a prize.
That's all you need to know about HuffPo. Despite a few articles like this, HP is not a science-friendly or science-literate site. But the site's organization has no bearing on anything else.
Nevertheless, global warming has been politicized by the denier crowd. What should have been a relatively easy infrastructure upgrade has become a political problem because of those people who believe, like Stalin did (see Lysenkoism for more info), that science should be "politically correct". So including this article in the Politics section is not necessarily wrong.
"Reduce, reuse, and recicle" are laughable direction to reduce GHG in air.
We have cars, with real efficiency less than 1%, in power plant we loose in vain 80% of fuel energy-heat energy.
We could change our transportation system, our electricity, heat, hot water supply, we could use wood, as source of energy with ZERO EMISSION.
WE COULD FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE WITH ONLY THREE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD-USA, CANADA AND MEXICO-North America influence climate from France to Japan.
bUT ALL OF THESE DIRECTIONS ARE MISSED BY THESE SCIENTISTS-they are busy to respond on political agenda from politician around the world.
Politicians always have some-GATE problems.
Efficiency of gasoline production is less than 45%.
It means that real efficiency of car movement is around 13.5%
If person (200 lb.) mostly alone is driving in this car (4,000 lb.) it means that efficiency of movement of this person in this car is 0.67%.
Perhaps mass (m) of car is 2,000 kg, mass of driver 100 kg and speed (V) of car 65 miles per hour or 110.5 km/hour or 30.7 m/sec
Kinetic energy of this car will be as follows:
K=1/2mv²=1/2 x 2100 x 30.7 x 30.7=1/2 x2100 x 942
As you can see in this case, the mass of car and its driver change the amount of kinetic energy twice more than the speed.
It is less important, if we drive on strait road without stop on long distance.
But usually it is traffic, or driving in city with stop on every light.
We are losing energy in vain.
If we will analyze situation with public transportation—cars, busses, trains, high speeds transportation situation will be even worst than for car. These types of transportation are heavier than car and Have many people aboard, which will wait few people going in and out.
It will be better to move one person on small cart with weight 20 lb. moving by electricity directly from grid.
In grid we are loosing more than 7% of energy. It means 11.6% of energy of fuel. 60%-11.6%=48.4
According maximum power theorem, resistance of source of energy must be close to resistance of load. In source of energy we are loosing around 50% of energy. 48.4/2=24.2
Efficiency of load in average is less than 80%. 24.2 x0.8=19.36
Not all plant has up to 60% of efficiency. And if you will speak with Engineers from usual power plants it is common – 13% of efficiency.
As you see efficiency of power plant, which is common for USA is less than 20%.
If we change power plant to use as heat as electricity power wood could provide more useful energy, than right now coal, natural gas, or petroleum.
Smoke from coal, natural gas, or petroleum is toxic for forests.
Smoke from wood we could put in water to watering forests, surrounding power plants.
Together with ash it will be the best nutrition to grow trees.
Let compare wood and coal by energy capacity:
1 ton coal = 16,200,000 to 26,000,000 Btu
1 ton wood = 9,000,000 to 17,000,000 Btu
“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,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.
There is no context these quotes could be taken out of that would exonerate the "scientists" who have been found to be committing fraud in the name of a political cause. This isn't science.
Ya, context is sooooooo irrelevant. What Jones said about the IPCC is absolutely correct. When you are inundated by denialist abuse of FOI requests, I'm actually happy to see them push back without folding under that abuse...and the IPCC doesn't fall under the FOI requirements. Nothing to see here.
So what do you have here. Out of context cherry picking. Out of context cherry picking. Out of context cherry picking. And an opinion of a PROVEN disingenuous denialist distortionist contrarian.....
you need a lot more meat on those bones to push your lazy meme
There's no such thing as "abusing" the FOIA. Any scientist should be prepared to show a critic of his theories the raw data at any time. That's how "science" works.
Scientists don't destroy their raw data..They preserve it so their results can be validated by others.
But MY main objection to your statement is, 1) this was not a whistle-blower morally obligated to releasing criminal activity. 2) The manipulation of the emails proves this was nothing more than an illegal hacking and purely agenda driven.
If the video Manning released was composited through cgi and visual effects to add or fuel outrage, would that not make HIM more criminal than those in the video and the following supposed cover-up?
to get some idea as to what is going on with this scandel.......glimate change is real......global warming is man made poppycock and it's really becoming evident.
It's really becoming evident if (a) you know nothing about the underlying scientific arguments and (b) you get all your news from the right-wing echo chamber, who have politicized this purely scientific story beyond belief.