Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[homeforsummer]

No, it was a serious question. Just don't know how you can make such a big unknown statement as, "If we weren't here, things would surely be different." There's nothing to back up what the world's climate would be like if Industrial revolution, etc, didn't happen. It's just estimating, as is going forward with the future and the "damage" we are doing.

As I didn't claim it to be gospel I don't see where the problem lies What I would say is that it's a fair guess. Are or are not things like CFCs the reason there's a fairly large patch of thinned ozone sitting in the Arctic circle? And are or are not CFCs a product of humankind?

 

[Joel]

Hybrid cars being used as a marketing tool: Bad. Hybrid cars being used as an alternative means to an end for reducing emissions and oil usage: Good.

The problem with hybrid cars, is that they're useless until we come up with some new way to power ships. I don't think a hybrid container ship would be possible.

The biggest problem with hybrids is getting the nickel from a mine in Sudbury, Canada, to Europe, to China, to Japan, in to the car, then to put the finished car back on ANOTHER container ship, to whatever continent you live in, where it is then shipped by ground to the dealer. Low emissions, eh? Until we have an "infrastructure" of hybrids, they do more harm than good.

 

[niky]

Hybrids... meh. The idea that more consumption can make up for previous consumption... if you really care about the environment... walk or bicycle. Hybrids make the most sense is in heavy traffic... and in those situations, cycling is actually faster (though, during bad weather, wetter) than driving. In long distance driving, having a smaller vehicle and engine with longer gearing... and doing slower speeds... is the best way to save.

No, it was a serious question. Just don't know how you can make such a big unknown statement as, "If we weren't here, things would surely be different." There's nothing to back up what the world's climate would be like if Industrial revolution, etc, didn't happen. It's just estimating, as is going forward with the future and the "damage" we are doing.

As I didn't claim it to be gospel I don't see where the problem lies What I would say is that it's a fair guess. Are or are not things like CFCs the reason there's a fairly large patch of thinned ozone sitting in the Arctic circle? And are or are not CFCs a product of humankind?

Actually... yes...

While it would be arrogant to say that humanity is the main cause of global warming... it would be naive to assume that the climate and environment is the same as it would be without us.

Extinctions... clear-cutting and deforestation... habit tdestruction... CFCs... DDT in penguins... a lot of what we produce is toxic to the environment and the biosphere... and a lot of it isn't going away.

Everything we do has consequences. These actions may be as small as the waft of air from a flapping butterfly, but they all add up to the whole.

 

[homeforsummer]

The problem with hybrid cars, is that they're useless until we come up with some new way to power ships. I don't think a hybrid container ship would be possible.

Funnily enough you've touched on a point I was thinking about the other day, that of encouraging the primary developers of hybrid and electric powertrains to be buses, trucks, vans, boats etc which spend the majority of their working lives on, rather than off (essentially, most passenger cars spend most of their time sitting in a driveway or a carpark, wheras working vehicles like goods vehicles spend most of their time on the road).

I'm considering starting a new thread on electric technology, hydrogen, hybrids etc in the automotive section - Done now

The biggest problem with hybrids is getting the nickel from a mine in Sudbury, Canada, to Europe, to China, to Japan, in to the car, then to put the finished car back on ANOTHER container ship, to whatever continent you live in, where it is then shipped by ground to the dealer. Low emissions, eh? Until we have an "infrastructure" of hybrids, they do more harm than good.

That's the major problem at the moment. Something like a Prius uses so much energy in it's manufacture before it even hits the showroom floor that it's clean reputation is definitely a bit dubious, even if it's better than many cars once it's being driven around. I recall Top Gear Magazine in the UK doing a comparison between various economical cars and deciding that the one with the least impact on the environment in terms of lifecycle was the Nissan Qashqai DCi (diesel) because it's entirely produced in the UK - the steel is made here, it's built in Sunderland so the furthest it has to be delivered on the back of a lorry is a few hundred miles, and it's a diesel so has very good fuel economy. If you lived in Northern France, you'd probably be best off with an 80mpg Smart ForTwo diesel, as Smart's production method is one of the cleanest and least energy-cosuming in the whole industry, and they're produced on the Franco-German border. And then there was Lotus' "Eco Elise" where nothing on it was produced more than about 80 miles from the factory.

So you're right, hybrids do have a long way to go yet (no pun intended).

 

[Sureboss]

Oh I agree that we have an impact on our environment, I'm just skeptical about what people take forward with that fact. I just don't think it's as black and white as some make it out to be.

Oh and I'm sure I could shock some of you on stories of energy wastage in the catering industry. I do find it amusing that the car manufacturers have all these legislations they have to follow, yet nothing is set out for a huge energy consuming industry like catering/hospitality. Be it power, water, etc.

 

[Mark T]

The University of East Anglia which specialises is climatology was recently hacked into. Information including e-mails was stolen and shows evidence that climate change could be exaggerated, Definitely worth reading. Link

 

[homeforsummer]

The University of East Anglia which specialises is climatology was recently hacked into. Information including e-mails was stolen and shows evidence that climate change could be exaggerated, Definitely worth reading. Link

Read it, and although the basis for evidence is fair enough, two things leave me unconvinced it's the "nail in the coffin" as the article puts it.

The first:

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything

Tongue-in-cheek or not, it's still the introduction for a bloke who knows infinitely more about being opinionated than he does on actual subjects of any worth.

The second:

It's the Torygraph, who being reasonably right-wing and generally upper-middle class aren't exactly known for their support of theories which go against the flow of conspicuous consumption, so I'm unable to treat them as an unbiased source of information.

Though thanks for providing the article, it'll be most helpful with my dissertation, given that I'll be writing about the media's approach to global warming and climate change stories 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

The second:[/I]

It's the Torygraph, who being reasonably right-wing and generally upper-middle class aren't exactly known for their support of theories which go against the flow of conspicuous consumption, so I'm unable to treat them as an unbiased source of information.

Though thanks for providing the article, it'll be most helpful with my dissertation, given that I'll be writing about the media's approach to global warming and climate change stories 👍

Um, if that is your only issue go back to posts from Friday, when it was first brought up. Do what I did when I find a biased site, Google it for less biased sites, as I found it reported in Nature, and later someone posted a link to it in the New York Times.

Neither of those two can be said to be known for supporting the skeptics.

Oh, and here is The Wall Street Journal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
And The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/climate-depot-everything_n_365754.html
And Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=leading-british-climate-centre

Fact is, this is just breaking and what, if any, affect this has is far from being determined. At most, I see more cases of professional conduct being questioned moreso than the validity of the research. Although, discussing using "tricks" in the data brings about a lot of questions. But I haven't actually bothered to download the 3,000 or so documents and read through them all.

 

[lbsf1]

How are we selfish to assume we're the cause? Surely assuming responsibility for something is a selfless act, rather than a selfish one?



I think I know what you're trying to say here, but you've worded it badly. The Earth is in a natural period of warming if most studies are to be believed, and throughout history the Earth has warmed and cooled in cycles. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that human activity is contributing to the warming. It would be hard to deny that without human input the climate would probably be quite different. And of course, it's not all about CO2. We can thank the period between the 20s and 80s and the reliance on CFCs for the nice big hole in the ozone layer in the Northern hemisphere. And of course, oxides of nitrogen, which do their bit for giving kids athsma and causing smog.



Hmm...



From here

Obviously Wiki isn't the best source in the world but you can genuinely rely on their scientific articles to be accurate and a bit more impartial than the page for a band, say, or a car.

Regardless, it seems to contradict your statement a little, and in the absence of any source to back yours up, I think I'll go with mine.



I hope you don't consider my reply "having a go" - it's merely debate - but I do suggest that you do your best to find and quote sources as otherwise your future arguements won't be particularly strong ones.

Thats my oppinion i don't count that as having a go i just hate people who say you are wrong bcause it isn't what they believe.

 

[Danoff]

Thats my oppinion i don't count that as having a go i just hate people who say you are wrong bcause it isn't what they believe.

Isn't that what you're doing?

I'm a global warming skeptic myself, but you're basically saying that you think they're wrong because it isn't what you believe. What am I missing?

 

[lbsf1]

Isn't that what you're doing?

I'm a global warming skeptic myself, but you're basically saying that you think they're wrong because it isn't what you believe. What am I missing?

not really how can you debate without showing your point of view. I think global warming isn't a myth but isn't to do with humans that much (maybe a tiny bit but we didn't cause it. Other peoples views in my mind i don't agree with and if they want to argue that case it is fine by me. (in my last post i probably put it a bit different that was because i started it then the bell rang for end of lunch at school so i had to quickly finish it so i said the simplest way i could.) What i don't like is people forcing you o believe in what they believe. All politicians make us believe global warming is real and a danger to humanity. I don' think it is. However i mind others beliveing global warming is a problem.

At the moment this is a debate (untill some guys comes allong and does what i said i don't like (see above))


I don't want to get peoples backs up however at the same time like to get my point across. If i did annoy you then then sorry.

i response to homeforsummer then Bill Bryson A short history of everything is a book about the universe and how it works. I don't want to start an argument with you i am just trying to get my point across sorry if i took it too far.

 

[homeforsummer]

I think global warming isn't a myth but isn't to do with humans that much

Fair enough - that's an opinion

maybe a tiny bit but we didn't cause it

Well that's what this thread is here for, to discuss the validity of that point.

What i don't like is people forcing you o believe in what they believe.

Nor do a lot of people.

All politicians make us believe global warming is real and a danger to humanity. I don' think it is.

It's probably unfair on politicians to say that all of them say global warming is real - I'm sure there are plenty who don't hold that viewpoint. Believe it or not politicians are allowed viewpoints independent of the general party view.

However i mind others beliveing global warming is a problem.

Why? Why do you mind that others hold a different view to you? Personally, my belief is that global warming is happening. Do I think it's all the product of mankind? No. Do I think that humans have an influence to either make it worse or make it better? Yes, I reckon so.

At the moment this is a debate (untill some guys comes allong and does what i said i don't like (see above))

I suspect you don't completely understand the point of debate, and if you think that a debate has to contain two or more sides of people saying things that the other people like then you're probably best staying out of the opinions and current events section because you might not be prepared for when people start... y'know, disagreeing.

Bottom line - it's still a debate regardless of whether you like what you're hearing or not.

I don't want to get peoples backs up however at the same time like to get my point across. If i did annoy you then then sorry.

Nobody minds you stating your opinion. People might start to mind if you're unable to accept that other people have their opinions.

i response to homeforsummer then Bill Bryson A short history of everything is a book about the universe and how it works. I don't want to start an argument with you i am just trying to get my point across sorry if i took it too far.

I know Bill Bryson's books well, though I haven't read the one mentioned. I have met the bloke more than a few times though, as he's the chancellor at the university I did my undergraduate degree at. I have though managed to find a quote from the book that's pertinent to this discussion:

It is mildly unnerving to reflect that the whole of meaningful human history - the development of farming, the creation of towns, the rise of mathematics and writing and science and all the rest - has taken place within an atypical patch of fair-weather. Previous inter-glacials have lasted as little as eight thousand years. Our own has already passed its ten thousandth anniversary.

The fact is, we are still very much in an ice age: it's just a somewhat shrunken one - though less shrunken than many people realize. At the height of the last period of glaciation, around twenty thousand years ago, about 30 percent of the Earth's land surface was under ice. Ten Percent still is - and a further 14 percent is in a state of permafrost. Three-quarters of all the fresh water on Earth is locked up in ice even now, and we have ice caps at both poles - a situation that may be unique in Earth's history. That there are snowy winters through much of the world and permanent glaciers even in temperate places such as New Zealand may seem quite natural, but in fact it is a most unusual situation for the planet.

For most of it's history until fairly recent times the general pattern for Earth was to be hot with no permanent ice anywhere. The current ice age - ice epoch really - started about forty million years ago, and has ranged from murderously bad to not bad at all. Ice ages tend to wipe out evidence of earlier ice ages, so the further back you go the more sketchy the picture grows, but it appears that we have had at least seventeen severe glacial episodes in the last 2.5 million years or so - the period that coincides with the rise of Homo erectus in Africa followed by modern humans.

What can we see here then? That we're actually coming out of the last ice-age still, if Bill's research is to be believed, and I don't doubt that. Logically though, that means we're in a period of "global warming". Is it man made? Probably not then, but at the same time it would not surprise me if man is accelerating the warmth.

(On a side note, as it's not completely relevant to the discussion, but humankind has done it's part nicely for pollution in other ways than just what's released into the atmosphere. Deforestation, for example, or oil slicks. Or chemicals released into the water table... etc etc).

He also doesn't mention in that short quote whether at peak warmth humankind would actually be able to cope even with this "natural" warming. Much of what we currently rely on as a species is very much influenced by our current climate. We've built massive cities in flood plains, for example, which in the last 8k years hasn't really been a problem as with far more ice 8k years ago than there is now the chances are the sea level probably wasn't as high. In another 2k years, it's probably a different story. Is this something humankind should prepare for? Probably. It's a little selfish to live too much in the present and expect your decendants to cope - as a species we now actually have the means to change the climate in a way that positively affects our survival in the future, something that no creature on this planet has every had the ability to do.

A final point, and that's that if you think that Bill Bryson is completely anti on the subject, then projects like this would make him out as a bit of a hypocrite. And I don't get the impression he's like that, so I'm guessing that in the book being referred to he's taking neither a pro nor an anti position and simply referring to the facts he's discovered.

Um, if that is your only issue go back to posts from Friday, when it was first brought up. Do what I did when I find a biased site, Google it for less biased sites, as I found it reported in Nature, and later someone posted a link to it in the New York Times.

Neither of those two can be said to be known for supporting the skeptics.

Oh, and here is The Wall Street Journal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
And The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/climate-depot-everything_n_365754.html
And Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=leading-british-climate-centre

Fact is, this is just breaking and what, if any, affect this has is far from being determined. At most, I see more cases of professional conduct being questioned moreso than the validity of the research. Although, discussing using "tricks" in the data brings about a lot of questions. But I haven't actually bothered to download the 3,000 or so documents and read through them all.

Thanks for the links, I'll have a read. The original, biased article posted put me off looking further into the subject when I probably should have.

 

[Thiele]

Aussie government is passing the ETS, which will cost families an extra $1100 a year and will not do jack 🤬 to the environment, since Australia only contributes like 5% or something. This will only work if the larger countries also take part.

Thanks to the government, the ETS was proposed. Thanks even more to the opposition leader for supporting it through parliament.

 

[allent2]

I belive they are guilting people in to giving up ________(fill in the blank, money, freedom, a free market by saying 'product "x" is not good for the enviorment, and there fore must not be sold', govenment and business small or large taxes) and basicly taking power from indivuals. I belive it is a tool that will lanch us further in to a one world govenment. By making us accountable.

 

[Skynyrd1977]

Its sad that objective investigative journalism is dead, or worse, has been associated with something next to evil. It irks me that this stuff is just covered up...

12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal

Even as Copenhagen looms, broadcast news ignores e-mails suggesting warming alarmists 'manipulated' data, conspired to destroy information and thwarted peer reviews.
By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
12/2/2009 2:01:37 PM

It’s been nearly two weeks since a scandal shook many people’s faith in the scientists behind global warming alarmism. The scandal forced the University of East Anglia (UK) to divulge that it threw away raw temperature data and prompted the temporary resignation of Phil Jones of the university’s Climate Research Unit.

Despite that resignation and calls by a U.S. senator to investigate the matter, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programming has remained silent – not mentioning a word about the scandal since it broke on Nov. 20, even as world leaders including President Barack Obama prepare to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases.

Other news outlets, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Associated Press have deemed ClimateGate worthy of reporting, but the networks were too busy reporting on celebrity car accidents and the killer whale that ate a great white shark. Instead of airing a broadcast news segment that might inform the public about the science scandal, both ABC and CBS relegated the story to their Web sites. There was one mention of the scandal on ABC’s Sunday talk show: “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

The ClimateGate scandal, as it is being called, has the hallmarks of a major news story: private emails purporting to show unethical or illegal behavior supplied by a hacker or whistleblower, high profile scientists like James Hansen and Michael Mann, and a potential conspiracy to distort science for political gain. But the networks haven’t bothered with the story.

Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and BMI adviser, said Nov. 20 of the leaked e-mails and documents: “This isn’t a smoking gun, it’s a mushroom cloud.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a question about ClimateGate by insisting that “global warming is happening” and that for most people it isn’t really a question anymore. That is the same message viewers get from the network news about climate change.

An examination of morning and evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC since Nov. 20 yielded zero mentions of the scandal, even in the Nov. 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen to discuss the need for emissions reductions. But during the same time period, the networks reported on pro-golfer Tiger Woods’ “minor” car accident at least 37 times. They also found time to report on an orphaned Moose and the meal selection at the president’s State Dinner.

ClimateGate began after someone (hacker or whistleblower) attacked servers of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and made thousands of e-mails and documents public. Those e-mails appear to show a conspiracy to falsify temperature data, a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles.

CRU’s director Phil Jones admitted real CRU e-mails had been stolen when he told New Zealand’s Investigate magazine, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.” Others argue a whistleblower was responsible for the breach.

One of those alleged e-mails was from Jones to Michael Mann (famous for his hockey stick graph of global warming) and two others appeared to indicate manipulation of scientific data.

Jones wrote: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [Sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Jones, who contributed to a chapter of the U.N.’s IPCC report, claims the term “trick” was used “colloquially as in a clever thing to do.” Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), supplied his own view of what Jones and Mann meant by hiding the decline.

Ebell wrote in the National Post: “What is the clever method that Prof. Jones learned from Prof. Mann? I think he is referring to the way Prof. Mann constructed his celebrated hockey stick graph. His proxy records showed flat temperatures for the past 1,000 years, including the past century. But everyone knows that temperatures have gone up rapidly in the past few decades … So what Prof. Mann did was splice the last few decades of surface temperature records onto his proxy record. Voila! – the hockey stick.”

The alleged e-mails were enough to force Jones’ temporary resignation. On Dec. 1, Associated Press reported that Jones is “stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.”

Other leaked e-mails asked people to delete e-mails and one said that if information was requested using FOI, it would be deleted rather than turned over:

Alleged e-mail from Jones to Mann Feb. 2, 2005:

“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

In Britain, it is a crime to delete information requested under FOI.


Networks Focus on Tiger’s ‘Minor’ Accident, Sea Lions, Pete the Moose

In more than a week, the networks couldn’t be bothered to report on the ClimateGate scandal. Instead they fixated on professional golfer Tiger Woods’ car accident and the rumors surrounding the crash at least 37 times.

And ABC, CBS and NBC had even more trivial stories to discuss during that time than Woods. Somehow the networks considered a sea lion glut in San Francisco, Pete the orphaned Moose, the color of tablecloths at the state dinner, Great White shark vs. Killer Whale, a baby panda and the Sonoma, Calif. crush of grapes. All were more worthy of reporting than a scandal that prompted one U.S. senator to call for an investigation.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said on Washington Times Radio Nov. 23 that “Since Barbara Boxer is the chairman and I’m the ranking member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days, when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation because this thing is serious.”

The three broadcast networks ignored ClimateGate even in reports about the upcoming climate change conference. On Nov. 25, all three evening newscasts mentioned Obama would be going to Copenhagen. NBC’s Brian Williams called global warming “one of the biggest issues facing the planet,” But didn’t say a word about the hacked emails or possibly manipulated data that laid the foundation for emissions reductions.

But just one day earlier, CBS’s Declan McCullagh reported on CBSNews.com that Congress might investigate “whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.” McCullagh’s lengthy story detailed the e-mail leak and reactions to it from both warming advocates and skeptics.

ABCNews.com waited until Nov. 28 to do an original report on the leaked e-mails on its Web site.


Scientists implicated…

The e-mails (which can be viewed and searched online) appear to show unethical and potentially illegal behavior on the part of prominent scientists (many of whom are involved in the UN IPCC process).

Here are just a couple of the most embarrassing e-mails that can speak for themselves:

From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and others including James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer in Oct. 2009:

“The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

From Jones to Raymond Bradley, Malcolm Hughes and Michael Mann on Feb. 21, 2005:

“PS: I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

A May 2009 e-mail from Jones allegedly told Mann to delete e-mails regarding the Fourth IPCC draft and said Keith and Caspar would also delete the correspondence.

One scientist featured prominently in many of the CRU e-mails was Mann, whose research has long been scrutinized by other scientists. He introduced his hockey stick chart in the 1990s, but it was questioned in 1998 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard, according to a February 2005 Wall Street Journal article. In 2003 others, including mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, also criticized Mann’s hockey stick.

The Journal reported at that time that Mann “tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions.”

Mann defended himself in a letter to the Washington Post on Dec. 1, 2009 saying “some have engaged in a smear campaign.” “They have stolen thousands of scientists’ personal e-mails, including some of mine, and have mined the e-mails for words or phrases whose meaning can easily be distorted,” Mann continued.

Iain Murray, a senior fellow at CEI, explained why the e-mails were so important and the three things everyone should know about ClimateGate.

“This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers,” Murray wrote.

Murray said the three vital things the documents indicated were that “the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results,” talked about “subverting the scientific peer review process” to prevent skeptics from being published, and worked to prevent disclosure of the information.

But the leaked e-mails were only the tip of the iceberg. According to The London Times online, scientists at the University of East Anglia “admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.”

That article described CRU as “the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures,” and quoted Roger Pielke, an environmental studies professor from Colorado University.

“The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us.’ So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” Pielke said.


Networks promote global warming, censor skepticism

Sadly, the willingness of the networks to capitulate to the global warming agenda and ignore other voices is not a recent phenomenon.

The Business & Media Institute has reported for years the way in which the news media have latched on to climate scares in the past 100 years (cooling, warming, cooling and now warming again). From ice age threats in the late 1800s to the warming in the 1920s, before returning to cooling fears again in the 1970s, print media encouraged fears of climate apocalypse.

But even more worrisome is the way the network news media have stifled debate on the issue of climate change. BMI released a Special Report in 2008 that found global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when they do barbs like “cynics” or “deniers” are often thrown in to undermine them.

On the networks, man-made global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumber those with dissenting opinions. During the 2007 study window, there was an average of 13 global warming advocates for each skeptic featured. CBS had the worst ratio: 38-to-1. That report also found that the networks frequently omit the cost of so-called solutions to global warming.

In 2009, BMI found that the networks remained silent as House committee passed a cap-and-trade bill out of committee. That bill, known as Waxman-Markey, could cost $9.6 trillion in GDP loss by 2035, according to one estimate. Meanwhile, the networks ignored the bill and almost never explained what cap-and-trade meant.

Ignoring the ClimateGate scandal is just the latest in a long line of poor reporting on climate issues by the network news media. Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com told the Business & Media Institute that the fact that the networks aren’t covering the story is actually “great news for the truth.”

Morano explained that the networks are making the “classic mistake” of thinking if they ignore the story it will go away, but talk radio and the internet are getting the information out to the public without spin from the networks which he said are “heavily invested in manmade global warming.”​

 

[Famine]

The BBC have just started to report on this today. And it's absolutely obscene.

 

[Danoff]

This is only a small part of the reason that we can't make decisions that cost trillions of dollars on the basis of unproven claims or models. The man-made global warming guys need to prove that their models are correct by predicting and being held to that prediction. The fact that they're struggling to explain the lack of warming over the last decade only highlights this.

On a side note, lay people may not understand how appalling it is for a scientist to pick data from two different sources and combine them into misleading chart - or to throw away inconvenient data. Either of those things is a major ethics violation. Kinda like a cop who takes bribes or a doctor who prescribes unnecessary operations. You'd think the media would have an absolute field day with that.

 

[DK]

Well, the effects of global warming are going to cost the world $5 trillion a year. So, lose a few hundred billion by cutting emissions, or lose a few trillion by not doing so. Call me alarmist, but I'm 15, and I don't want my planet looking like Kamino when I'm 65 or something.
P.S. Google "Kamino" and you'll know what I'm on about.

 

[Danoff]

Well, the effects of global warming are going to cost the world $5 trillion a year.

Prove it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Its sad that objective investigative journalism is dead, or worse, has been associated with something next to evil. It irks me that this stuff is just covered up...

Don't worry. Jon Stewart and The Daily Show already covered it, and polls show young adults trust him more than anyone else anyway.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-1-2009/scientists-hide-global-warming-data
"Poor Al Gore. Global Warming debunked by the very Internet you invented."

Well, the effects of global warming are going to cost the world $5 trillion a year. So, lose a few hundred billion by cutting emissions, or lose a few trillion by not doing so. Call me alarmist, but I'm 15, and I don't want my planet looking like Kamino when I'm 65 or something.
P.S. Google "Kamino" and you'll know what I'm on about.

Let me guess, you ignored the previous multiple posts discussing how the science used to make your current claims is being called into question due to what looks to possibly be ethical violations by the scientists. Or that Danoff was pointing out that the science used to make those predictions is failing to predict things much closer.

 

[zeemie]

Well, the effects of global warming are going to cost the world $5 trillion a year. So, lose a few hundred billion by cutting emissions, or lose a few trillion by not doing so. Call me alarmist, but I'm 15, and I don't want my planet looking like Kamino when I'm 65 or something.
P.S. Google "Kamino" and you'll know what I'm on about.

What economic impact will come from no net warming in the last ten years and slight cooling in the last four or five?

Check around here for some science that might enlighten you.

Zeemie

 

[Touring Mars]

Its sad that objective investigative journalism is dead, or worse, has been associated with something next to evil. It irks me that this stuff is just covered up...

The BBC have just started to report on this today. And it's absolutely obscene.

It irks me when you guys can't be bothered to check your facts.

Famine's claim that the BBC has just started to report this today is absolute rubbish - as a matter of fact, BBC's Newsnight reported and discussed the issue on the 23rd of November. Not only that, but the mainstream media in the UK - the Guardian in particular, but also the Independent, Times and Telegraph have reported it thoroughly, with the Guardian picking up the story the day it happened (like the BBC), featuring relevant stories (including the main article slot) on it's website since the news broke, editorial comments and even an article about the foolishness of trying to deny that the hack is not an issue!!!!

Since then, the UN/IPCC have launched an investigation, UEA have appointed an independent reviewer to investigate, and Phil Jones has resigned. In addition, the journal Science has covered the story at length, as has Nature - and Nature also published an editorial regarding the matter yesterday. Seriously, if this is your idea of a "cover up", then I'm embarrassed for you.

lay people may not understand how appalling it is for a scientist to pick data from two different sources and combine them into misleading chart - or to throw away inconvenient data. Either of those things is a major ethics violation.

You mean like this:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2426188&postcount=648
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2309481&postcount=607
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2200707&postcount=441

Of course, this graph was not made by a scientist, but by a well-known climate change denier Steven Milloy - and yet it has been repeatedly trotted out in this thread as if it were definitive proof that man-made global warming can't possibly be true - which is, of course, completely wrong.

I have already pointed out in this thread that this masterpiece of buffoonery is deliberately misleading, but only shows one thing - that Earth's climate is not completely controlled by atmospheric CO2. I have also said before that both lines on that graph are 'real' data from reputable journals - but it is the juxtaposition and the interpretation by Molloy (and others!) that is completely wrong (and in Molloy's case, intentionally so). Just to put it in perspective, the lines on those graphs are ~4 million years thick. Quite how this graph can be "proof that the whole Global Warming debate is hogwash" and/or "should have definitively ended the debate" on what effect man has had on the current climate (given that mankind didn't even exist 5 million years ago) is utterly beyond me.

 

[homeforsummer]

Talking of the BBC, I found (or was linked to, I forget) this the other day:

An animated journey through the Earth's climate history

It's perhaps a little simplistic and towards the end trots out the "everything is doomed" type line, but the logic doesn't seem too flawed - scientists can determine past climates from looking in ice (and indeed rock too) as ice hides billions of bubbles of air from throughout history. The animation acknowledges that we're in a period of natural warming (just like Bill Bryson mentioned in the quote I posted a page or so back) but since the industrial revolution there does seem to be an increase in the pace at which the Earth is warming.

At the same time, one particular part caught my eye and that's the population increase - if the world population has gone up by four billion or so since the 50s, it's probably not far wide of the mark to assume that humans themselves are contributing towards an increase in greenhouse gases simply by exhaling. And then there's the large matter of livestock farming, which if I recall correctly contributes a huge amount of CO2 and methane to the atmosphere.

 

[Famine]

It irks me when you guys can't be bothered to check your facts.

Famine's claim that the BBC has just started to report this today is absolute rubbish.

That was just the hacking itself. The article I eventually found on the BBC website covered the alleged falsification of data (and a pair of quotes that the data was "genuine" and "misquoted") and was dated December 4th. I did much searching and that was the only article I found on the site which covered that part of the story...

Incidentally, it's not the reporting of it that's obscene. It's the story itself.

as a matter of fact, BBC's Newsnight reported and discussed the issue on the 23rd of November. Not only that, but the mainstream media in the UK - the Guardian in particular, but also the Independent, Times and Telegraph have reported it thoroughly, with the Guardian picking up the story the day it happened (like the BBC), featuring relevant stories (including the main article slot) on it's website since the news broke, editorial comments and even an article about the foolishness of trying to deny that the hack is not an issue!!!!

And of course I was out of the UK from 14th-29th November so didn't get to watch Newsnight or pick up a paper (not that I've read a paper since 2004).

I have been watching US news channels of an evening - they're about the only watchable ones besides AMC - and they've carried nothing about this.

You mean like this:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2426188&postcount=648
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2309481&postcount=607
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2200707&postcount=441

Of course, this graph was not made by a scientist, but by a well-known climate change denier Steven Milloy - and yet it has been repeatedly trotted out in this thread as if it were definitive proof that man-made global warming can't possibly be true - which is, of course, completely wrong.

I have already pointed out in this thread that this masterpiece of buffoonery is deliberately misleading, but only shows one thing - that Earth's climate is not completely controlled by atmospheric CO2. I have also said before that both lines on that graph are 'real' data from reputable journals - but it is the juxtaposition and the interpretation by Molloy (and others!) that is completely wrong (and in Molloy's case, intentionally so). Just to put it in perspective, the lines on those graphs are ~4 million years thick. Quite how this graph can be "proof that the whole Global Warming debate is hogwash" and/or "should have definitively ended the debate" on what effect man has had on the current climate (given that mankind didn't even exist 5 million years ago) is utterly beyond me.

Does Steven Milloy directly advise and influence government and the IPCC with his falsified data?

That's the part to which I referred as obscene - not the reporting of it.

It simply beggars belief that any scientist, let alone ones so influential that much of the UK's day-to-day lives are directly affected by them, would (allegedly) need to resort to "tricks", hide behind information laws, shy away from other information laws and destroy data which does not fit.


Ultimately it proves one thing - and it's not that global warming/anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. It's that we still don't know enough, that there isn't enough convincing data one way or the other, that there's considerably less convincing data on the pro-ACC side (as UEA's CRU is a major contributor to that side and none of it can currently be trusted) than there was 3 weeks ago, that it's still nonsensical to legislate based on either "side" of the topic and, sadly, that there are still far too many career scientists who are willing to continue to make the conclusions they are paid to make.

The last bit alone pretty much makes up "obscene" to me.

 

[Touring Mars]

That was just the hacking itself. The article I eventually found on the BBC website covered the alleged falsification of data (and a pair of quotes that the data was "genuine" and "misquoted") and was dated December 4th. I did much searching and that was the only article I found on the site which covered that part of the story...

Your post made no such distinction, so you can hopefully understand why it was misleading.

And of course I was out of the UK from 14th-29th November so didn't get to watch Newsnight or pick up a paper (not that I've read a paper since 2004).

I have been watching US news channels of an evening - they're about the only watchable ones besides AMC - and they've carried nothing about this.

I appreciate that, but the fact that you were out of the country was all the more reason for you to not say that the BBC haven't picked up this story, when infact they did, as did many others.

it's not the reporting of it that's obscene. It's the story itself.

The accusation leveled by Skynyrd1977 is specifically about the reporting and the alleged ignorance of the story by US networks. While I don't doubt that some networks really are as biased (in both directions), I also think it is critically important to report the facts as they are known, complete with the relevant context - both of which, in all truthfulness, were in short supply in the immediate aftermath of the hack.

Whether it is the story itself that is "obscene" is a matter of opinion. I find it rather obscene that illegally obtained private correspondence can be used in this manner, and interpreted by any pseudoscientific hack with a vested interest in any manner they see fit. As I showed in my post, however, the scientific community as well as commentators usually against the denialist agenda have, nonetheless, taken this issue very seriously indeed and firmly believe that the matter requires full investigation.

Significantly, Nature points out that the alleged 'conspiracy' to influence the content of the 2007 IPCC report by blocking critical content or papers that challenged the consensus view not only had no effect, but there is (as yet anyway) no evidence to suggest that any actual attempt to block the content was ever made - an email saying "I think we should try to stop this paper from being included" is very far from evidence to prove that they actually did try to stop it... but that evidence would be damning and it would demand action to be taken. But, crucially, whether this sort of behaviour occured or not is still rendered moot by the fact that the critical papers were indeed included anyway.

Does Steven Milloy directly advise and influence government and the IPCC with his falsified data?

Yes, he does. But in the case here, the data is not falsified - it is real data. It is his interpretation that is wrong - woefully wrong.

But let's be clear about one thing - the issue here is not about the falsification of data either. It is about the different methods employed to process and analyse the same data. This feeds back into the main allegation - that the former head of the CRU, Phil Jones, appeared to want to stop the inclusion of McIntyre and McKitrick's paper from inclusion in the IPCC 2007 report - because they challenge the methodology employed by the likes of Mann etc. and hence the conclusions that may be inferred from their analysis. None of the leaked emails constitute any proof that any data was falsified at all - but yet, the investigation should root out any possible wrong-doing when it came to processing, analysing and reporting that data.

It simply beggars belief that any scientist, let alone ones so influential that much of the UK's day-to-day lives are directly affected by them, would (allegedly) need to resort to "tricks", hide behind information laws, shy away from other information laws and destroy data which does not fit.


Ultimately it proves one thing - and it's not that global warming/anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. It's that we still don't know enough, that there isn't enough convincing data one way or the other, that there's considerably less convincing data on the pro-ACC side (as UEA's CRU is a major contributor to that side and none of it can currently be trusted) than there was 3 weeks ago, that it's still nonsensical to legislate based on either "side" of the topic

Until there is any evidence to show that any data was manipulated in any way that significantly differs from normal procedure, and that it can be established that this difference in procedure is attributable to a desire to support a presupposed agenda, then it is too early and would be unfair to write-off the output of an entire university/climatic research unit simply on the strength of a few bits of email correspondence.

sadly, that there are still far too many career scientists who are willing to continue to make the conclusions they are paid to make.

The last bit alone pretty much makes up "obscene" to me.

That is a grossly unfair and sweeping generalisation. Whether it is obscene to you or not is your issue, but please don't start down the road of attacking the presence of career scientists as if it is any justification for attacking the science itself. To do so would ignore the reality of publishing in high impact journals, which puts stringent requirements on scientists to reveal and explain their data and their methods, and exposes their work to analysis and critique at every turn, especially after it has been published.

What I find obscene is that people still listen to the many career non-scientists, whose conclusions are usually based on nothing more than their own pseudoscientific interpretation of the data, and who "publish" their work in the blogosphere instead of the peer-reviewed literature.

 

[Famine]

Your post made no such distinction, so you can hopefully understand why it was misleading.

Yep. That's why I clarified it.

I appreciate that, but the fact that you were out of the country was all the more reason for you to not say that the BBC haven't picked up this story, when infact they did, as did many others.

Their website doesn't appear to bear that out. They have the hacking story to which you linked and the subsequent allegation story to which I linked and absolutely nothing in-between.

Though there's a comments page for ClimateGate (and I roll my eyes heavily at that last word).

The accusation leveled by Skynyrd1977 is specifically about the reporting and the alleged ignorance of the story by US networks.

As I say, I was actually in the US during the period of this story breaking and growing and watched their news channels every day (except one). I didn't hear a word about it - and questions have been posed in the Senate!

Whether it is the story itself that is "obscene" is a matter of opinion. I find it rather obscene that illegally obtained private correspondence can be used in this manner, and interpreted by any pseudoscientific hack with a vested interest in any manner they see fit. As I showed in my post, however, the scientific community as well as commentators usually against the denialist agenda have, nonetheless, taken this issue very seriously indeed and firmly believe that the matter requires full investigation.

Significantly, Nature points out that the alleged 'conspiracy' to influence the content of the 2007 IPCC report by blocking critical content or papers that challenged the consensus view not only had no effect, but there is (as yet anyway) no evidence to suggest that any actual attempt to block the content was ever made - an email saying "I think we should try to stop this paper from being included" is very far from evidence to prove that they actually did try to stop it... but that evidence would be damning and it would demand action to be taken. But, crucially, whether this sort of behaviour occured or not is still rendered moot by the fact that the critical papers were indeed included anyway.

On one hand you have the illegal activity of hacking the data. While the act itself isn't relevant to the topic (unless it turns out it was an insider...) of ACC, don't be under any illusions that I approve.

On the other you have the illegal activity of refusing to comply with numerous Freedom of Information Act requests, which is relevant to the topic. One has to ask why the CRU hasn't complied with any FOI requests... ever. One also has to ask why there are pleas from Phil Jones in the e-mails to pretend the FOI doesn't exist and claims of hiding behind the Data Protection Act while he was claiming, to Nature, that he wanted to make all the data publicly available but that not all the owners had agreed...

Yes, he does.

Does he? I'm not aware of him contributing to the IPCC...

But in the case here, the data is not falsified - it is real data. It is his interpretation that is wrong - woefully wrong.

But let's be clear about one thing - the issue here is not about the falsification of data either. It is about the different methods employed to process and analyse the same data. This feeds back into the main allegation - that the former head of the CRU, Phil Jones, appeared to want to stop the inclusion of McIntyre and McKitrick's paper from inclusion in the IPCC 2007 report - because they challenge the methodology employed by the likes of Mann etc. and hence the conclusions that may be inferred from their analysis. None of the leaked emails constitute any proof that any data was falsified at all - but yet, the investigation should root out any possible wrong-doing when it came to processing, analysing and reporting that data.

Indeed. That and a private unwillingness to cooperate with the FOI while publicly saying he was working on it, requests to delete e-mails (even Mann has distanced himself from that one), a statement that results are real but we can't see them because the detection equipment isn't up to the job yet (what?) and accusing someone else in the field of writing a PhD based on data he knew to be false.

Until there is any evidence to show that any data was manipulated in any way that significantly differs from normal procedure, and that it can be established that this difference in procedure was deliberately used to change the data itself in order to support a presupposed agenda, then it is too early and grossly unfair to write-off the entire output of an entire university/climatic research unit simply on the strength of a few bits of email correspondence.

I did say "none of it can currently be trusted". Not that it should all be thrown out.

It all needs to be sifted through and reviewed again - if only to show Jones's integrity - before it can be accepted back into the fold.

That is a grossly unfair and sweeping generalisation. Whether it is obscene to you or not is your issue, but please don't start down the road of attacking the presence of career scientists as if it is any justification for attacking the science itself. To do so would ignore the reality of publishing in high impact journals, which puts stringent requirements on scientists to reveal and explain their data and their methods, and exposes their work to analysis and critique at every turn, especially after it has been published.

I think I've either missed something here or been misinterpreted...

"Career scientists" are people who make a career out of science. I don't believe this to be an insult...

Any scientist who makes the conclusions he's paid to make isn't a scientist. There are too many of them - "one" being the number which is too many - and Jones's e-mails show a willingness to ignore/destroy data which doesn't fit, hide from and behind laws depending on how they suit him and discredit and defame those who don't agree.

I'm not seeing the unfairness or generalisation here...


Also, if it helps, I'm not an ACC-denier. I've always been firmly on the fence. However I've never been a fan of the oft-bandied-about "scientific consensus" - of which UEA's CRU data forms the majority of what our government frequently refers to as such.


Edit: It's also worth noting that the BBC site is currently carrying what could be characterised as an ACC-denier story, asking what happened to global warming. They cite cooler temperatures since 1998 - the warmest year on record - but don't mention that 6 of those 11 years are in the top 7...

 

[Touring Mars]

On the other you have the illegal activity of refusing to comply with numerous Freedom of Information Act requests, which is relevant to the topic. One has to ask why the CRU hasn't complied with any FOI requests... ever. One also has to ask why there are pleas from Phil Jones in the e-mails to pretend the FOI doesn't exist and claims of hiding behind the Data Protection Act while he was claiming, to Nature, that he wanted to make all the data publicly available but that not all the owners had agreed...

The accusation that the CRU have acted illegally is unfounded. The Freedom of Information Act does not oblige any body or institution to just hand over anything and everything that is asked of them. Using the Data Protection Act or "hiding" behind privacy laws is not illegal - it is not even immoral or wrong, depending on the circumstances. It says much about the denialists (and I realise that you are not one of them) that they are quick to counter their own actual illegal activity with accusations of criminality by the other side. FOIA issues aside, the vast majority of relevant data is publicly available and is not in dispute - what is in dispute is the methodology used to analyse the data.

Does he? I'm not aware of him contributing to the IPCC...

Not the IPCC, no. But Milloy's "work" in the climate science area has, however, been referenced and used in U.S. Senate minority reports on climate change. Granted, it is debatable whether this can be construed as directly influencing government. But it is far preferable that government look at the peer-reviewed literature - all of it - in order to gain insight or take advice on climate change policy rather than to rely on the type of hogwash spouted by professional deniers like Steven Milloy.

I think I've either missed something here or been misinterpreted...

"Career scientists" are people who make a career out of science. I don't believe this to be an insult...

Any scientist who makes the conclusions he's paid to make isn't a scientist. There are too many of them - "one" being the number which is too many - and Jones's e-mails show a willingness to ignore/destroy data which doesn't fit, hide from and behind laws depending on how they suit him and discredit and defame those who don't agree.

I'm not seeing the unfairness or generalisation here....

Been misinterpreted probably... the attitude and behaviour of one individual is not evidence that the conclusions of the community as a whole are corrupt, and as far as I know, there is no evidence to show that any real climate scientists have ever made conclusions they were paid to make. If you have such evidence, I'd like to see it. I feel that it is an unfair generalisation to use the alleged trangressions of one person to justify casting doubt on the conclusions that are supported by many other strains of independent evidence, and although I appreciate the fact that you have made your distinction much clearer, it is a distinction that the denialosphere is seemingly unwilling to make. Either way, whether any scientists - corrupt or otherwise - get it wrong - purposefully or not, they will be found out eventually .

 

[Famine]

The accusation that the CRU have acted illegally is unfounded. The Freedom of Information Act does not oblige any body or institution to just hand over anything and everything that is asked of them.

Unless there are specific contractual reasons why the data cannot be released, or there is a commercially sensitive nature to it, that's exactly what the FOI requires of publicly-funded institutions. The umbrella beneath which UEA and the CRU both reside.

Using the Data Protection Act or "hiding" behind privacy laws is not illegal - it is not even immoral or wrong, depending on the circumstances.

It is wrong in this instance - not because it's not moral, but because it doesn't apply. The act applies to personal information, not climate data.

Unless it was collected at someone's house.

It says much about the denialists (and I realise that you are not one of them) that they are quick to counter their own actual illegal activity with accusations of criminality by the other side. FOIA issues aside, the vast majority of relevant data is publicly available and is not in dispute - what is in dispute is the methodology used to analyse the data.

In fact it's their data that is available - the post-processed raw data. It's the raw data that is not and which is oft-requested. We want to see the raw data*, not least so that we can compare it and see what they have been doing to it.

Not the IPCC, no. But Milloy's "work" in the climate science area has, however, been referenced and used in U.S. Senate minority reports on climate change. Granted, it is debatable whether this can be construed as directly influencing government. But it is far preferable that government look at the peer-reviewed literature - all of it - in order to gain insight or take advice on climate change policy rather than to rely on the type of hogwash spouted by professional deniers like Steven Milloy.

The problem is that what has been peer-reviewed is the CRU's results. I recall Andrew Wakefield's results were also peer-reviewed in The Lancet, six years prior to its retraction - and 9 years before he was accused by the GMC of "suppressing and falsifying data"...

Been misinterpreted probably... the attitude and behaviour of one individual is not evidence that the conclusions of the community as a whole are corrupt, and as far as I know, there is no evidence to show that any real climate scientists have ever made conclusions they were paid to make. If you have such evidence, I'd like to see it. I feel that it is an unfair generalisation to use the alleged trangressions of one person to justify casting doubt on the conclusions that are supported by many other strains of independent evidence, and although I appreciate the fact that you have made your distinction much clearer, it is a distinction that the denialosphere is seemingly unwilling to make. Either way, whether any scientists - corrupt or otherwise - get it wrong - purposefully or not, they will be found out eventually .

I didn't single out climate science either... Any scientist in any field who ignores data which doesn't fit, manipulates data so it does and is anything less than completely open about all of his methods and results doesn't deserve to wear the badge of "scientist". It's little wonder that many people don't trust science and scientists while we tolerate insidious gits like Dr. Wakefield. Phil Jones may find himself put on the same level, or exonerated, depending on the outcomes of several inquests likely to happen in the next decade.


All this said I can't imagine the political motivation for pretending that ACC exists when it doesn't, nor the financial reason for publishing "research" to corroborate it, though that doesn't validate it. I can easily imagine political and financial reasons for pretending ACC doesn't exist when it actually does, though that doesn't invalidate it. Either way, I'm still wholly unconvinced by either side with or without the CRU's data.

Mind you, Al Gore got a Nobel Prize for it. Though even that isn't as odd as Obama's.


*Dendrochronology and the divergence problem. I'm given to understand that up until 1960, raw data collected by, as cited, Keith Briffa, agrees with thermometer data and that after that the two graphs diverge. To account for the divergence problem, CRU adds observed temperatures for post 1960. To me that says that the tree-ring data doesn't agree with thermometer data (given that temperature alone doesn't govern tree-ring formation, that's not a shocker), save for a 50 year spell early last century when they were much-of-a-muchness. Which raises a natural question - why is tree-ring data trusted to provide an accurate picture of Global Mean Temperature for the first 1,960 years of the graph, but in need of correction for the last 40 years of it? What would the first 1,960 years of the graph look like if corrected for actual thermometer readings?

 

[Touring Mars]

Unless there are specific contractual reasons why the data cannot be released, or there is a commercially sensitive nature to it, that's exactly what the FOI requires of publicly-funded institutions.

The Freedom of Information Act also makes specific exceptions and therefore there are legitimate reasons why FOI requests can be legally refused. Besides any of these exceptions that may be applicable, it is also possible that CRU does have contractual reasons why they cannot release the data in the form demanded too, hence it is quite wrong to state that they have broken the law at this point, especially before a proper investigation has been carried out. The Met Office is about to publish its own data - but it needs permission to release more historical data. In other words, they clearly have data that they are not allowed to release, and therefore an FOI request placed to the Met Office for that information could be legitimately turned down.

 

[Famine]

The Freedom of Information Act also makes specific exceptions and therefore there are legitimate reasons why FOI requests can be legally refused.

Only one applies specifically to environmental data (which includes "air" in its definitions), and that doesn't apply in this case - and it's technically covered by the Environmental Information Regulations anyway which don't permit this. More broadly they are exempt if the information is commercially sensitive, contractually bound or would constitute a breach of trust if not kept from the public. The obligations under the FOI are to provide the data or the reason for exemption within 20 days.

Interestingly, I've been checking about and CRU do meet their 20 day obligation. Here's their reasons for rejecting a request for a CRU-obtained data set:

Exception Reason
Reg. 12(4)(b) – Request is manifestly unreasonable. Information is available elsewhere

Reg. 12(5)(a) – Adverse effect on international relations. Release would damage relations with scientists & institutions from other nations

Reg. 12(5)(f) – Adverse effect on the person providing information. Information is covered by a confidentiality agreement

Now... call me odd, but if the information is available elsewhere, how is it covered by confidentiality agreements and how would its release damage international relations? And how is it available elsewhere if it's data generated by the CRU and subject to confidentiality!

The above is taken from the ClimateAudit blog and was a request for raw data generated by CRU stations not intended for publication and not covered by confidentiality agreements (Nature reported on this - they quote Jones as saying that the data is restricted to academic use [which has no basis in law, and was requested by an academic in the field of paleoclimatology anyway] and "in some cases the agreements were made verbally and in others the written records were mislaid during a move").

The Met Office is about to publish its own data - but it needs permission to release more historical data. In other words, they clearly have data that they are not allowed to release, and therefore an FOI request placed to the Met Office for that information could be legitimately turned down.

Data intended for publication is also exempt.

Amusingly the Met Office's data also comes from the CRU...


Edit: Ultimately, whether they are actually guilty of wrongdoing or not, they look like they are and that's not a place science should be and not a strong position for such a politically sensitive area. That said, Mandelson seems unharmed by repeated actual lying.