“When will we see this in the US Press? NEVER, or later?”

Are you kidding? Tiger Woods smashed his car! We’re talking celebrities, injury, and probable domestic violence and/or intoxication of someone fameous and rich. That should carry the MSM thru until Kim Kardashian gets a divorce.

You’ve got to have priorities, after all.

Another good link . . . but I have to temper the points made in it with the reality that its an opinion piece. It doesn’t discredit anything the author said, but at the same time by definition the writer is expressing his (legitimate) personal impression on the issue, rather than reporting on just facts. Again, nothing factual he said is wrong that I know of, and his conclusions may well be entirely justified, but his opinion doesn’t make it so.
This situation IS indisputably devistating for the “warmers”, but until I can see more data (hopefully forthcoming) I’m not putting my chips on either side of this one yet.

The data may have been “fudged” (some or all of it), but the underlying principle seems to me to be still intrinsically sound. The greenhouse effect is, as far as I know, an accepted fact. Its how the globe retains heat, which is a darn good thing (I like having food). The chemicals under discussion (CO2 et. al.) do chemically make up part of that effect. Increasing the quantity of greenhouse gasses should increase the ammount of heat retention occuring via the greenhouse effect. Now, the increase of heat retention may be infintessimal . . . but the underlying physics of the effect still appear valid, at least from my perspective.
Are the additional chemicals added to the environment by humans negligible or destructive? That seems to be the crux of the current issue. But the underlying theory still (as far as I can tell) holds water. If our atmosphere were 100% greenhouse gases, the planet should be hotter than it is now. We’d be dead so it wouldn’t matter, but the effect isn’t being disputed, is it? If we lost the ozone layer, we’d be pretty screwed. Now, maybe the CFCs from a hair spray can aren’t going to do squat to damage the layer . . . but on the other side it absolutely isn’t going to help either.

If the data is going to be released (and no doubt violently sifted by players on both sides), then how compelling the issue is has to remain undetermined at the moment. I certainly agree that the effort to conceal and distort heavily implies the data indicates the issue is negligible, but we just don’t know yet.

p.s.: Who the fu@k is Kim Kardashian, and why am I supposed to care? Apparently she’s Bruce Jenner’s daughter, which is dandy and all, but why do I see her name everywhere I go?

More from the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

When will we see this in the US Press? NEVER, or later?

Regards,

I’m hopeful this will illuminate the debate one way or another, but I’m pesimistic. The faithful on both sides will find the confirmation that they are looking for regardless of what the data is.

Anyways, should be interesting either way.

Maybe we’ll get an answer http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

Regards,

“The hypothesis of AGW is a catastrophic/inertal concept, by which I mean that if it IS real, it has as a likely consequence true genocide, and it would be a phenomenon that can’t be rapidly altered (push a button and everything is better).
The theory goes that once we have indisputable “proof” (ocean levels rising and wiping out costal centers, mean temperatures rising to crop-affecting levels for decades, etc.), its too late. We’re screwed.”

I think you get to the crux of what has driven what I suspect is a great deal of fraud, which will make East Anglia the norm and not the exception. Because of what is perceived as a race to stop destruction, a greater good is perceived as served when typical methodology is avoided, data skewed, and so forth to speed things along.

“Would it also be logical then to assume that the political motivations of the naysayers drove their science? If the public policy drove the science, where did the initial science come from that drove the public policy? The givernment and society didn’t wake up one day and say “man, I’ll bet pollution will cause the globe to overheat — better go find some scientists to back that up”. That idea came from the initial scientific reports, so they couldn’t have been driven by pressure.”

No. While it is true of some, that side doesn’t have a pet theory to protect and give credence with policy decision. What has emerged from East Anglia, an Orwellian name I adore, is the pressure was intense not to veer from what became orthodoxy. There is nothing new there, but it has been especially pronounced with AGW.

“What is the logical response to such a situation? Why can’t we continue to investigate the science while at the same time taking steps that (if its true) might avert the disaster? That seems the most prudent and logical path, unless you posit that there is NO evidence supporting the global warming concept, which seems as nonsensical as saying the science is irrefutably settled.”

What isn’t logical is to massively restructure lives until we know:

a) there is a sound reason to do so; and
b) if there is a sound reason, the disruptions will be effective the perceived threat.

Sometimes we don’t even consider the “b” part.

Again, your response was thoughtful.

funny man:

“Some of you have already decided there is no AGW some of you that there is. That’s in large part rooted in politics, gut feeling and wishful thinking, not science. Climatology is a difficult field because you can’t really make an experiment like in biology.”

What I find objectionable is the political response, or the proposed public policy responses, to a theory that is so uncertain for the reasons you set forth. I don’t know whether AGW is true or not and am quite agnotic on the topic, but we have seen proposals that treat it as an absolute certainty. Those proposals would cause major hardship on many people, and I can’t go there without a greater degree of certitude.

Oh jesus - someone stop me from pissing in my pants I’m laughing so hard. What a simple minded, ignorant galoot.

ed.

It’s sort of like Gorgon Lightfoot’s song “If you could read my mind”

What I was attempting to address is that my understanding that the resultant temperature data was provided as East Anglia is/was the collector/aggrigator, I believe, BUT the methodology or makeup of the actual model which was used to produce that underlying data upon which, much if not all of the “peer reviewed” research is based, has not been provided so any other scientist, particularly a skeptic could reproduce the data independantly.

I am quite cynical about “peer review” in science anymore. It goes back to WADA “World Anti-Doping Agency”, FRAUDA World I call it. Another group of junk scientists. They got “peer reviewed” science by having like minded scientists “peer reviewing” their own work, NOT getting other skeptical scientists involved.

Regards,

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

I wouldn’t agree with Robinson. Based on the latest revelations we do NOT know the world is hotter now than 100 years ago.

I agree absolutely if the research on warming were encompassed by somebody saying “trust me — I totally verified it, but I won’t tell you how or show any data” then there isn’t much to consider.

Are you saying that of the hundreds of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, NONE of them have ever shown their data? That’s news to me if true, but I learn new things every day so if there is no report providing data please open my eyes.

If some have provided data (legitimate without validating their conclusions) and some haven’t (illegitimate) . . .then again, throw out the “mysterious” reports and just go with the “data provided” studies. Still seems like a credible body of evidence to at least consider the possibility, unless a bad report means ALL reports are inherently tainted, and that’s going too far IMO.

I get the impression that we are using two different defintions of “provided the data”. I find it highly questionable that report after report said “I measured the temperatures here for a dedcade, and after doing some nifty math the answer is 3 degrees of temperature increase! No charts, no tables, not even naming the algorythmic formula used to get the result . . . its MAGIC, I tell you!”
That is what I think of when I see the phrase “does not allow anyone to see the calculations or tests”. I get the impression that is NOT what you mean, so I’m a little confused about what discredits the entirety of research into the topic rather than individual reports or scientists, but I also get the impression the failure is on my end.