"Climategate" scientists cleared

[Drake]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...ex.html?hpt=T2

"The seven-month review, led by Muir Russell, found scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) did not unduly influence reports detailing the scale of the threat of global warming produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," Russell said."

"In a statement, Jones said he was "extremely relieved" the review was over. "We have maintained all along that our science is honest and sound and this has been vindicated now by three different independent external bodies," he said.

In March, a British parliamentary committee cleared Jones of hiding or manipulating data. A separate review in April by Lord Oxburgh found no evidence of impropriety, but said the scientists involved in the e-mails had been disorganized.

Climate scientist Michael Mann, who was referred to in Jones' email about "Mike's Nature trick,' said he hoped Wednesday's report would put the "bogus, manufactured scandal behind us."

"Human-caused climate change is a reality, and it's about time we get on to a meaningful discussion about what to do about it," he said."



It's about time, really. Of course, we have a couple of big oil pawns on this board who think that BP is being persecuted, oil is somehow an eternal resource (which is, even at the most base logical level, impossible) and that global warming is a myth. Keep lining their pockets, buddy...

[1bad65]

If they are so innocent, why did Phil Jones step down when the story broke?

As to lining the oil companies pockets, I guess I can assume you will be first in line for a new Volt, right?

[Drake]

If they are so innocent, why did Phil Jones step down when the story broke?

As to lining the oil companies pockets, I guess I can assume you will be first in line for a new Volt, right?

Actually, I own a hybrid. I'd love a Volt, though.

You are in no position to determine their innocence. The three independent scientific studies are, and they found them innocent.

My "guess" is that he stepped down in order to avoid causing trouble for his fellow scientists. You see it happen a lot in these professions. I think he recognized that his own priorities are not as important as the research.

Except big oil. They'd much rather go yacht racing while the Gulf dies instead of stepping down.

But they are being persecuted, right?

[1bad65]

You are in no position to determine their innocence. The three independent scientific studies are, and they found them innocent.

Actually anyone who can read English can judge them. The e-mails are right there for all to see. Legit scientists do not tell each other how to "hide" data.

Except big oil. They'd much rather go yacht racing while the Gulf dies instead of stepping down.

Maybe they should take up golf and basketball like our President has done throughout the spill.

But they are being persecuted, right?

Considering they were operating 100% within the law, yes they are being persecuted.

[Drake]

Uh... they weren't hiding anything. Are you actually going to go there and say three different independent investigations are wrong and you are right? Are you REALLY going to do that? Did you even bother checking into what the e-mails MEANT? And I read the e-mails too. I disagree with your assessment, and I'm even going to go off and say your beliefs are politically motivated.

And no, BP wasn't operating according to the law. They ignored safety regulations, and no they weren't granted a waiver for that.

[David Jamieson]

I'm wiling to bet that any day now Al Gore will trot out the old manbearpig travelilng show again. With new powerpoint slides!

See, these kinds of things are a hard sell. Climate change is inevitable and quite frankly I believe it was demonstrated right in the emails, that I can remember where data was deliberately left out in order to not leave any room for the counter proponents to argue.

Also, the very idea of climate change being fixable through cap&trade or some other form of taxation is absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

The world has been warming since the end of the ice age. Do they care that glaciers are SUPPOSED to recede at the end of an Ice age?

They also aren't dealing at all with corporations who produce these en masse technologies. They aren't revealing how people like my provincial premier has consistently denied applications for solar wind outfits, electric car builders and has still not made good on a promise from almost 5 years ago where he said he would put scrubbers into the stacks of coal fired electric plants across the province.

He has not, this is a lie.

The idea that you are responsible for the planet warming up because you use your car and your washer are ridiculous and what's worse is the outrageous hypocrisy being practiced by those people who are telling us that it's man's fault that the earth is changing and that we should all stop driving we should all stop laundering and we should all just sweat in the heat.


Bottom line for me in this is that the AGW group is a scam looking to start a new economy based on pilfering more taxes from the people.

God forbid anyone should rise up through their merits and live well.
screw those people, I honestly don't care for their lies anymore and I don't think that a court ruling changes anything that has already come out, it's just saying they aren't going to prosecute their guys for lying.

[Drake]

No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.

[David Jamieson]

No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.

Oooooh a catchphrase. I'm convinced I was wrong now because of this!

People aren't stupid because they don't believe what is being attempted to be sold to them. Fact is NO ONE can clearly demonstrate that this is in fact the case. IE: Mankind is responsible for AGW and furthermore NO ONE can demonstrate that AGW is even the case at hand.

I UNDERSTAND that overconsumption is a burden and that pollution is the bad thing for us. But that is not what is being sold. There is an agenda at hand with AGW and that is the Green taxation schemes and cap&trade schemes. THere is no actual plan to reduce oil consumption, to compact cars more, to create new energy efficiencies and incentives to lifestyle change are not being offered. Just taxes waiting to be shoved down your throat because it's your fault.

Dude, it's crap. I'm not an unreasonable person and I am certainly not unable to read or unable to understand even some level of complex technical data. There are millions like me and many more that are even more capable of data interpretation and observation that simply do not agree with what is being sold.

Many see this as a natural progression of events but at the same time see a need for pollution reduction. If all you can read into that is that I am completely against the idea without any wiggle room around what may be the actual problems at hand, then I would have to say perhaps this argument is headed down the trail to nowhere.

I'm guessing you don't actually have an argument about it? Some data to offer that you can articulately explain? Or are you gonna do an Al gore thing and just show slide after slide of wasteful pollution and natural disasters followed by commentaries about how this is advanced/accelerated global warming and it's all you poor peoples fault!

meanwhile, the G20 is still jetting around to meetings, wrecking cities and they could have teleconferenced the whole thing with a HUGE MASSIVE reduction in their "carbon footprint"

I believe that Icelandic volcano spewed out about 50x more C02 than what man has produced in 100 years so.... where does that leave AGW proponents?

hmmmn

[Drake]

So we can pollute all we like because the volcano caused statistically minor problems?

Let's remove the catchphrase, since you don't like them. We are introducing, unnaturally, tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We'v already caused a hole in the Ozone Layer, which isn't natural. We've slicked up the Gulf, the Pacific Northwest, chunks of Africa, and the Persian Gulf with oil. We've poisoned rivers and waterways to the extent that a Russian lake is actually fatal to even come near.

And since you like numbers, last year, globally, we've released over 29 million metric tons of CO2. That was caused by us. Source: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDe...srid=749&crid=

And for your assertion... Eyjafjallajoekull released 150,000 tons of CO2 a day. The European Aviatian industry releases 344,109 tons A DAY. That's more than a 2:1 ratio using aviation in Europe ALONE. Source: http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...es-or-volcano/


So while you can try to stun me with random numbers, like you, I prefer statistics and raw data.

[Drake]

So... whatcha got?

FYI... the volcano actually lowered CO2 emissions by jamming up the aviation industry.

[Drake]

And I agree that capping emissions is pointless. At this point, we've already screwed ourselves. Now we can only control the pace of our destruction.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Regardless of ones views on climate change it is a given that WE humans DO have some effect on it.
I think the issue is how much, but to be honest I would rather err on the side of caution.
The issue in the Golf is THE ISSUE of our time and must be dealt with and it is NOT and that is 100% criminal.

[David Jamieson]

Oooooh a catchphrase. I'm convinced I was wrong now because of this!

People aren't stupid because they don't believe what is being attempted to be sold to them. Fact is NO ONE can clearly demonstrate that this is in fact the case. IE: Mankind is responsible for AGW and furthermore NO ONE can demonstrate that AGW is even the case at hand.

I UNDERSTAND that overconsumption is a burden and that pollution is the bad thing for us. But that is not what is being sold. There is an agenda at hand with AGW and that is the Green taxation schemes and cap&trade schemes. THere is no actual plan to reduce oil consumption, to compact cars more, to create new energy efficiencies and incentives to lifestyle change are not being offered. Just taxes waiting to be shoved down your throat because it's your fault.

Dude, it's crap. I'm not an unreasonable person and I am certainly not unable to read or unable to understand even some level of complex technical data. There are millions like me and many more that are even more capable of data interpretation and observation that simply do not agree with what is being sold.

Many see this as a natural progression of events but at the same time see a need for pollution reduction. If all you can read into that is that I am completely against the idea without any wiggle room around what may be the actual problems at hand, then I would have to say perhaps this argument is headed down the trail to nowhere.

I'm guessing you don't actually have an argument about it? Some data to offer that you can articulately explain? Or are you gonna do an Al gore thing and just show slide after slide of wasteful pollution and natural disasters followed by commentaries about how this is advanced/accelerated global warming and it's all you poor peoples fault!

meanwhile, the G20 is still jetting around to meetings, wrecking cities and they could have teleconferenced the whole thing with a HUGE MASSIVE reduction in their "carbon footprint"

I believe that Icelandic volcano spewed out about 50x more C02 than what man has produced in 100 years so.... where does that leave AGW proponents?

hmmmn

So we can pollute all we like because the volcano caused statistically minor problems?

Let's remove the catchphrase, since you don't like them. We are introducing, unnaturally, tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We'v already caused a hole in the Ozone Layer, which isn't natural. We've slicked up the Gulf, the Pacific Northwest, chunks of Africa, and the Persian Gulf with oil. We've poisoned rivers and waterways to the extent that a Russian lake is actually fatal to even come near.

And since you like numbers, last year, globally, we've released over 29 million metric tons of CO2. That was caused by us. Source: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDe...srid=749&crid=

And for your assertion... Eyjafjallajoekull released 150,000 tons of CO2 a day. The European Aviatian industry releases 344,109 tons A DAY. That's more than a 2:1 ratio using aviation in Europe ALONE. Source: http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...es-or-volcano/


So while you can try to stun me with random numbers, like you, I prefer statistics and raw data.

Please read my post instead of skimming it.

Pollution is a problem that can be dealt with through legislation. the impact would be a cost to corporations and it would be a cost of doing business and could have a tax incentive applied. I understand this and feel this is a far better way to go than to allow continued pollution levels remain which is what AGW supports through green taxes.

they don't actually support reduction. They support paying to pollute. That is an error in thinking in my books.

as for the iceland volcano, I don't know if either of those numbers is wholly accurate because the volcano had a peak and simmer and airflight isn't the same day after day.

so, lets not get lost in the forest for the trees.

Speaking of trees, they consume CO2 all day long, then release it at night! Most if not all plants do this cycle. That means that everynight, every single piece of plant life is pumping out Co2 for ALL TIME!!!! RUN!!!!!

See what I mean?

there is NO accurate holistic view of the global environment. Just because we collect data doesn't mean it has applicability immediately.

I think it's more important to stop burning coal and oil, but I think it's pretty evident this is NOT about the environment, it's about money and control.

[Drake]

No. The problem is you brought up your own G20 woes and distracted from the fact that Climategate was a fabricated story by conservatives, much like how liberals attempted to discredit Fmr Pres Bush's military record with fabricated documents.

You further attempted to distract from the subject by bringing up CO2 from he volcano, which I promptly debunked and dismissed.

I read your post. I simply found much of it to be irrelevant to what I was saying. I'm sorry the conference is jacking up your neighborhood, but I didn't plan it.

[1bad65]

And no, BP wasn't operating according to the law. They ignored safety regulations, and no they weren't granted a waiver for that.

So why haven't criminal charges been brought against them? What fines have been levied against them for breaking the laws?