1 of 17
1
Leaked E-mails Reveal How Heated Global Warming Debate Is
Posted: 22 November 2009 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2009-05-31

Whether or not global warming is anthropogenic continues to be a heated debate, and recently released e-mails reveal just how heated it is. Please, check out the Washington Post article below…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR

 Signature 

Don’t live each day as it’s your last, but live each day anew, filled with optimism, hope and change!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2009 10:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

The dishonesty and deceptions of anti-science people do have bad effects all-around.  Its sad to see it affect a Climate Change report and hard to know how to deal with those deceptions.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2009 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05

The debate is not whether mankind is a leading contributor to global warming, the debate is on how to deal with the deniers. Unfortunately, these leaked e-mails will give the deniers opportunity to quote climate scientists out of context and cry even louder about how they are being shut out of the scientific journals. Global warming deniers are experts at taking data out of context and cherry picking their talking points. This gives them more fuel for their unethical tactics.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2009 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2008-06-27

Deniers is a pejorative term, and is in fact disingenuous.  It isn’t for you to ‘declare’ the truth, when the truth isn’t yet known.

It isn’t for scientists to ‘deal’ with anything other than science.  If they want to engage in underhand tactics, then they’re in the wrong job.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2009 05:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05

Patriot, I could not disagree more strongly. No one has “declared the truth.” If you take the time to read what the climate scientists tell us you’ll see they are warning about risks, not telling us absolute truths as they see them. This global warming debate should be about risk management and science assessment. Unfortunately, many people will not open their eyes and see what is happening to our planet. The Arctic ice pack is disappearing in the summer right before our eyes. The Antarctic ice pack is starting to break up. Glaciers are melting around the globe. Insects are moving northward as the climate warms. So yes, “deniers” is an accurate word for people who ignore these facts. If one chooses to take that as a pejorative term I won’t argue the point.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2009 05:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2008-06-27

Firstly, my name is not Patriot.  Secondly, by using the term ‘denier’ you are implying that there is an evident ‘truth’ to deny.

There isn’t, yet.

There are many people who believe that what is happening to our planet would happen with or without the contributions of mankind.  Glaciers do not melt in quite the way you suggest.  The Arctic ice pack hasn’t always been there, and has often been much larger than it is now.  Insect populations always migrate.

Nobody denies these facts.  Lots of people doubt that mankind has any meaningful influence on them.

Quite simply, you are wrong to suggest that there is anything to deny.  The truth of the matter has not yet been decided.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2009 06:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05

Sorry about getting your name wrong, Parrot.

I am also sorry to realize you doubt the world’s leading climate scientists and side with the energy companies. Have you read the latest IPCC report?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2009 06:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2008-06-27

Where did I say that I had sided with anybody?  Is that the extent of your argument, that you’re either “with us or against us”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2009 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

CBS News is the first major U.S. network other than FOX to treat the story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2009 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  339
Joined  2008-02-27

This is not simply a matter of skeptics smearing scientists.  I don’t know if actual data was manipulated as alleged.  The email written about using a trick to get data into a graph could be an innocent turn of phrase.  It strikes me that skeptics may be overstating things or jumping to some conclusions, but it’s not all hype either. 

I have seen clear evidence of emails where Phil Jones stated he would destroy information before turning it over and emails where he actually requests information be deleted rather than turned over in response to a Freedom of Information act request.  I also saw emails where Jones and others attempt to block the publication of papers in journals by people who disagreed with them. 

These latter two issues seem pretty anti-intellectual to me.  I’ve also read that the researchers at East Anglia refuse to release the data upon which they base their conclusions.  If that’s true, it’s pretty disturbing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2009 08:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05
Parrot of Doom - 24 November 2009 06:32 AM

Where did I say that I had sided with anybody?  Is that the extent of your argument, that you’re either “with us or against us”?

I guess it was you parroting the deniers’ talking points that confused me.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2009 05:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
Parrot of Doom - 24 November 2009 05:38 AM

Deniers is a pejorative term, and is in fact disingenuous.  It isn’t for you to ‘declare’ the truth, when the truth isn’t yet known.

It isn’t for scientists to ‘deal’ with anything other than science.  If they want to engage in underhand tactics, then they’re in the wrong job.

I think “skeptic” is a better term.  One can be a skeptic about the leaked email story as well rather than being an “email denier”.

I agree that “lieing to promote the truth”  goes down the wrong path.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2009 09:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2457
Joined  2008-06-03

I am sort of sick of the whole global warming debate. I’m sad to say it, but I am just tired of arguing about it.

I wish people who keep arguing against global warming, would instead just focus on avoiding pollution, avoiding waste of resources, preserving natural lands and forests, reducing energy consumption, and finding/using more efficient resources and exploring “green technology” - for the simple reason that it’s bad practice to waste natural resources and pollute our environment, and it endangers future generations. It just makes sense.

Focusing on these problems would not only help reduce pollution and energy consumption, and preserve natural resources, it would reduce carbon emmissions. Win-win for everyone, on both sides of the debate.

While global warming does concern me, I may just focus my attention on what I can do to reduce pollution and avoid waste, and encourage my friends and family to do the same. That will make a difference no matter what side of the debate friends and family are on. We ALL need clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and cleaner more efficient sources of energy.

 Signature 

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.    - Lex Luthor

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2009 02:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08
Parrot of Doom - 24 November 2009 05:38 AM

It isn’t for scientists to ‘deal’ with anything other than science.  If they want to engage in underhand tactics, then they’re in the wrong job.

You mean they should become politicians or “journalists”?

If the message is being distorted…?

Of course I too agree,

Jackson - 25 November 2009 05:51 AM

that “lieing to promote the truth”  goes down the wrong path.

Well said, Jackson.

But what to do?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2009 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1805
Joined  2005-07-20

Regarding the University of East Anglia emails of Phil Jones
and Michael Mann…

I don’t see much reputable news about it, the little bit of
news that I see does not look like much has happen, if “trick”
is the worst thing that was said in the leaked emails, c’mon a
trick can often be a good wise and skillful thing… here’s a
trick with some unicode characters :

⇨ a arrow head
⊀ a angle symbol with a slash
∞ infinite
♡ a heart

Heres a trick with color.

Schneider summerizes the climate change deniers well with:

  “Pat Michaels and the Competitive Enterprise Institute
  continue to obfuscate well-established scientific conclusions
  by counting on most non-specialists to be unaware of the vast
  preponderance of multiple lines of evidence for anthropogenic
  climate warming. Their technique is to raise minor objections
  that don’t remotely refute the preponderance, and use this
  scientific trivia to claim that until all points of debate
  are resolved the mainstream case isn’t ‘proven.’”

If there is any future announcements about this issue look for
the evidence and dismiss the unsupported speculations.

 Signature 

I saw a happy rainbow recently.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 November 2009 06:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
jump_in_the_pit - 27 November 2009 01:36 PM

Regarding the University of East Anglia emails of Phil Jones
and Michael Mann…

I don’t see much reputable news about it, the little bit of
news that I see does not look like much has happen, if “trick”
is the worst thing that was said in the leaked emails, c’mon a
trick can often be a good wise and skillful thing…

Quite true; context is everything.  But “trick” was not the worst thing in the e-mails.  Probably worst was the promise to keep skeptical science out of journals, with a quotation along the lines of even if I have to redefine peer review.  It’s fine to to screen journal articles to some extent, but the main point of peer review is to look at the stuff that’s published.  The e-mails also indicate serious flaws with the codes used to model climate change, and call into question the use of tree ring data.  The e-mails also apparently touch research activities in the United States and New Zealand.  It is hard to tell how deep this story runs.  Perhaps it will prove a relatively minor embarrassment.  Or it may lead to additional findings of bad science.  I expect time will tell.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 17
1