Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Sam48]

Would you like to provide me with links to these emails that "confirm" that there's been no warming since 1995? Read the article that you posted. Even the Daily Fail has had to include in their article that he used the term "not statistically significant" rather than actually saying the whole shebang was all made up. I think you'll find those words were yours.

If you're an eco-sceptic then fine - feel free - but you're completely refusing to view both sides of the debate, which is either because you're too scared to look into it in any proper detail, or possibly because you're just too myopic to learn about any other viewpoint on the subject than your own.

You seem to misunderstand - you're quoting from a very, very dubious source, and posting it as if it's some sort of fact. You're grossly mistaken.

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/11/20/leaked-emails-confirm-global-warming-is-a-deliberate-hoax/

 

[FoolKiller]

I love the people who look out the window and go

"Its been snowing for days, so much for global warming"

With no perception that climate change goes in both directions. Seriously though we have more snow here then I can ever remember. My parents house, which usually average a 10-15 inch blizzard every 10 years, have had 1 20+ inch storm, 1 30+ inch storm, and 1 10+ inch storm since just before christmas. Nuts weather this year.

Is it nuts? Roughly 10 inches of snow is equal to an inch of rain, depending on temperature. Colder temperatures (drier, fluffier snow) means an inch of rain is equal to even more inches of snow, and warmer temperatures (wetter thicker snow) means an inch of rain is equal to less inches of snow. We will call it 10 inches for an average.

Anyway, if we assume 10 inches of snow = 1 inch of rain: Have you never had a 2-3 month period where you had three different rain showers of 2 inches, 3 inches, and 1 inch? I get that all the time. What is the main difference between that and what you have now? It is cold.

Now, I don't know exactly where you are, but I know that DC has gotten similar to what you just posted and according to Weather.com average precipitation for DC is 3.21 inches in January and 2.63 inches in February. Now, convert that to snow-causing temperatures and it looks a lot like what we have now. It is just that normally their average high for those months is 42 and 47 degrees (F). It is not the snow that is the unusual thing, as you typically see it in the form of rain, it is the temperature.

Why does that matter?

It matters because if you want anyone to take you seriously when you try to discredit someone only discredit him for things he actually did. He did not say the things the article from the Daily Mail attempted to make him out to have said. For every false accusation like this, it becomes harder to have legitimate ones taken seriously.

That article belongs in the media bias thread, not this one.

 

[WVUscion]

Is it nuts? Roughly 10 inches of snow is equal to an inch of rain, depending on temperature. Colder temperatures (drier, fluffier snow) means an inch of rain is equal to even more inches of snow, and warmer temperatures (wetter thicker snow) means an inch of rain is equal to less inches of snow. We will call it 10 inches for an average.

Anyway, if we assume 10 inches of snow = 1 inch of rain: Have you never had a 2-3 month period where you had three different rain showers of 2 inches, 3 inches, and 1 inch? I get that all the time. What is the main difference between that and what you have now? It is cold.

Now, I don't know exactly where you are, but I know that DC has gotten similar to what you just posted and according to Weather.com average precipitation for DC is 3.21 inches in January and 2.63 inches in February. Now, convert that to snow-causing temperatures and it looks a lot like what we have now. It is just that normally their average high for those months is 42 and 47 degrees (F). It is not the snow that is the unusual thing, as you typically see it in the form of rain, it is the temperature.

I never thought about it that way, and yes my parents live just outside of DC. I guess the lower temperatures would make up for the snow total slightly. But two large noreasters in a month? I don't think thats ever happened and that has to do with currents and moisture.

 

[Sam48]

It matters because if you want anyone to take you seriously when you try to discredit someone only discredit him for things he actually did. He did not say the things the article from the Daily Mail attempted to make him out to have said. For every false accusation like this, it becomes harder to have legitimate ones taken seriously.

Did this interview happen or not? Most websites I go to tell the same story (they show the interview). Jones lied to the public by inserting false statistics did he not? That's basically the bottom line.

 

[homeforsummer]

Did this interview happen or not? Most websites I go to tell the same story (they show the interview). Jones lied to the public by inserting false statistics did he not? That's basically the bottom line.

You do realise that all the websites you're going to are telling one, significantly biased side of the story, right?...

That link you provided be before was from a site called "Stop the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)". I'm not saying the ACLU are necessarily a good thing, but then is an organisation biased strongly the other way really a good place to search for news either?...

You're either refusing to acknowledge the other side of the story, or ignorant of it. Neither is a good place to be.

 

[Famine]

Did this interview happen or not?

Yes it did. In that interview did this occur:

Phil Jones ... has now admitted that global warming is a hoax.

Did he say "Global warming is a hoax"? I don't recall it being in there. I don't even recall the Daily Mail - the Daily Mail - saying that, and they'd pretend immigrants all had AIDS if they thought it'd sell papers.

Jones lied to the public by inserting false statistics did he not?

That is the allegation. It remains to be seen if it's the case.

 

[Sam48]

You do realise that all the websites you're going to are telling one, significantly biased side of the story, right?...

That link you provided be before was from a site called "Stop the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)". I'm not saying the ACLU are necessarily a good thing, but then is an organisation biased strongly the other way really a good place to search for news either?...

You're either refusing to acknowledge the other side of the story, or ignorant of it. Neither is a good place to be.

So what your saying is, if I had gotten the news from a leftist site, it would have somehow been in your favor. I don't think so. The leaked emails are the same no matter what site you go to (although most leftist sites DIDN'T publish the leaked emails at all, as to avoid doubt among their own party).

 

[FoolKiller]

I never thought about it that way, and yes my parents live just outside of DC. I guess the lower temperatures would make up for the snow total slightly. But two large noreasters in a month? I don't think thats ever happened and that has to do with currents and moisture.

Looking at where the frontal boundaries have been placed by things like jet stream activity (which has been unusual due to a cyclical occurrence this year), it explains a lot. You have your high atmosphere cold air coming farther south than usual (as it has all year, or did you forget the mild, wet summer too) and bumping up against your warmer moist air, right over your head. I have been fortunate enough to have these boundaries hit north or south of me every time, resulting in my max at 4.5 inches, but I clearly remember past years where these things have landed right over my head.

In my life I have had days with two inches of ice that were then covered by 24+ inches of snow here in Kentucky. More than a week without power in sub-freezing temperatures.

Nothing you are seeing is unheard of. Unusual, yes. But not unheard of.

And the primary reason why there are "Its been snowing for days, so much for global warming" comments is because in the early 2000s Democrat politicians were using the lack of snowfall as an example of global warming to point out the need for environmental regulations. If that mindset hadn't been created then it wouldn't be biting them in the butt now.

Did this interview happen or not?

Which interview? The one where you claim he said things like global warming data was "made up?" You put quotes around that, indicating he said that very thing. If so, then no it did not happen.

Most websites I go to tell the same story (they show the interview). Jones lied to the public by inserting false statistics did he not? That's basically the bottom line.

Nothing in this interview indicates that. In fact he ducks out of answering any questions regarding the emails and the whole thing surrounding it. I think he actually said something about how he wished people spent as much time reading his research as they did his emails.

 

[homeforsummer]

So what your saying is, if I had gotten the news from a leftist site, it would have somehow been in your favor. I don't think so. The leaked emails are the same no matter what site you go to (although most leftist sites DIDN'T publish the leaked emails at all, as to avoid doubt among their own party).

No.

I'm saying that if you'd bothered to find some unbiased sources (which I'm beginning to feel is beyond you) then you'd realise that the biased sources you are using are missing out a whole lot of truth in order to make their own viewpoint look more authoritative.

Far left is equally as bad as far right. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I put myself in either camp.

 

[Sam48]

Nothing in this interview indicates that. In fact he ducks out of answering any questions regarding the emails and the whole thing surrounding it. I think he actually said something about how he wished people spent as much time reading his research as they did his emails.

I should have made this connection early, so I'll mention now. The "leaked emails" from the UK that we got in December, or maybe it was November, anyway, you know what I mean, were from the SAME university as the one Jones himself was a professor in.

He said there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995. It doesn't mean the temperature has gone down, but it doesn't imply that it's gone up, atleast the way Al Gore says it will, either. Non the less, that phrase alone, "There hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995", should tell you something about that hockey stick graph is wrong.

 

[Sam48]

No.

I'm saying that if you'd bothered to find some unbiased sources (which I'm beginning to feel is beyond you) then you'd realise that the biased sources you are using are missing out a whole lot of truth in order to make their own viewpoint look more authoritative.

Far left is equally as bad as far right. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I put myself in either camp.

I'm still not sure what you mean. Unless there's a big chunk of this story that proves you right, I'm at a loss. The Emails speak for themselves, if there's something bias about them, or the story surrounding them, I would greatly appreciate it if you told me. But every source on the web I could find (including unbiased ones) tell the same story.

Sorry, I didn't even realize I double posted.

 

[homeforsummer]

How about the fact that the leak comes from just the one university? I suspect that the University of East Anglia isn't the only uni in the world that specialises in climateology and yet it's the only one we've heard anything like this from. I don't see all the other unis suddenly jumping in to say "actually, we made up all our research too"...

It's a very, very limited source. Suspicious? Of course. Not necessarily representative of the subject nor other findings on the climate though.

 

[DK]

So what your saying is, if I had gotten the news from a leftist site, it would have somehow been in your favor. I don't think so. The leaked emails are the same no matter what site you go to (although most leftist sites DIDN'T publish the leaked emails at all, as to avoid doubt among their own party).

Here's what you should do. Go to whatever sites you regularly go to (taking that you are probably Republican and a climate change skeptic, Fox News would probably be an example) and also go to these leftist sites that you criticize. Then compare what these sites are saying and make your opinion. Of course, chances are you won't take my advice and you'll continue to use Fox News and all these right-wing sites. Like homeforsummer said, far left is as bad as far right, and vice-versa. And to quote him again, don't make the mistake of assuming that I put myself in either camp.

 

[Sam48]

How about the fact that the leak comes from just the one university? I suspect that the University of East Anglia isn't the only uni in the world that specialises in climateology and yet it's the only one we've heard anything like this from. I don't see all the other unis suddenly jumping in to say "actually, we made up all our research too"...

It's a very, very limited source. Suspicious? Of course. Not necessarily representative of the subject nor other findings on the climate though.

True, but these emails didn't come from some down town university nobodies heard of, they came from East Anglia University, one of the leading climate research Universities of the world.

Regarding the fact that no other Universities admitted they had made up there research, there's a simple explanation. If your buddy jumps off a cliff why should you follow him? For the other top climate research universities to admit they to have made up their research would be suicidal in terms of reputation.

 

[FoolKiller]

I should have made this connection early, so I'll mention now. The "leaked emails" from the UK that we got in December, or maybe it was November, anyway, you know what I mean, were from the SAME university as the one Jones himself was a professor in.

Um, OK. I'll even go farther and point out that some of them were his own emails. I have no clue what this has to do with the interview you originally claimed he admitted it was "made up" in. I am questioning your (and the Daily Mail's) interpretation of what he said in the interview he had with the BBC.

He said there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995. It doesn't mean the temperature has gone down, but it doesn't imply that it's gone up, atleast the way Al Gore says it will, either.

This is very far from:

Phil Jones, the professor at East Anglia's Climate Research center in the UK, and the man who shared a noble prize with Al Gore, has now admitted that global warming is a hoax. And that all data over the last 15 years about the global temperatures was "made up" in order to make seem as if the earth was warming.

You originally misconstrued his words to mean something completely different. I have a lot of questions regarding the theory of AGW and the data involved in getting it, and definitely don't agree that there is enough information to indicate that we should call for government intervention, but I will not watch words be completely misconstrued. I too saw the Daily Mail article over the weekend. I looked up the actual interview in question to see what it is he was saying and no where did he claim there was no warming in the last 15 years, nor did he claim anything was made up or a hoax.

Non the less, that phrase alone, "There hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995", should tell you something about that hockey stick graph is wrong.

It tells me you know very little in regard to the hockey stick graph. The time frame in question is 1995 to 2010, but the hockey stick graph used by the IPCC in 2001 stops at the end of 1999. Data not used in the hockey stick graph, because it didn't exist yet, says nothing about the hockey stick graph.

How about the fact that the leak comes from just the one university? I suspect that the University of East Anglia isn't the only uni in the world that specialises in climateology and yet it's the only one we've heard anything like this from. I don't see all the other unis suddenly jumping in to say "actually, we made up all our research too"...

It's a very, very limited source. Suspicious? Of course. Not necessarily representative of the subject nor other findings on the climate though.

OK, I'm confused by this. It only comes from East Anglia because East Anglia is the university that had their servers hacked. This was not designed to appear as an internal leak, but rather as a server hack. Presumably, no one at East Anglia was trying to say they made anything up.

That said, not all emails involved are from East Anglia. There are emails between people at East Anglia and other researchers, like Professor Michael Mann from Penn State, as researchers from different universities do have a habit of sharing data and discussing it. So, while the emails were pulled from a server from only one university, they are not just from the researchers at that one university.

And while investigations continue, the only thing that has come from this so far is that they did illegally not respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. While that is certainly enough to raise an eyebrow, it is not condemning anyone.

 

[homeforsummer]

Regarding the fact that no other Universities admitted they had made up there research, there's a simple explanation. If your buddy jumps off a cliff why should you follow him? For the other top climate research universities to admit they to have made up their research would be suicidal in terms of reputation.

And do you not think there is more pressure for them to be open about their research now? Under extra scrutiny do you not thing we'd have heard about something else? Or are you happy to believe that because one Professor at one University in one country has been found to have been a bit spurious, then the whole concept of global warming is therefore null and void?...

OK, I'm confused by this. It only comes from East Anglia because East Anglia is the university that had their servers hacked. This was not designed to appear as an internal leak, but rather as a server hack. Presumably, no one at East Anglia was trying to say they made anything up.

That said, not all emails involved are from East Anglia. There are emails between people at East Anglia and other researchers, like Professor Michael Mann from Penn State, as researchers from different universities do have a habit of sharing data and discussing it. So, while the emails were pulled from a server from only one university, they are not just from the researchers at that one university.

And while investigations continue, the only thing that has come from this so far is that they did illegally not respond to Freedom of Information Act requests. While that is certainly enough to raise an eyebrow, it is not condemning anyone.

I probably phrased it badly. I do refer to my musing above that there should (in theory) be a lot more pressure on other Professors from other universities now after the East Anglia "scandal", but after I originally read the story my thought was that much of it had likely been taken out of context. There are enough scientists in the world studying the subject that I would have thought the theory of global warming would have been disproven long ago had there been some solid evidence to suggest that it didn't exist. General scientific consensus seems to suggest that it does exist, but as I've mentioned a few times, we're just unsure if man-made global warming is as serious as it's occasionally made out to be.

 

[Sam48]

Um, OK. I'll even go farther and point out that some of them were his own emails. I have no clue what this has to do with the interview you originally claimed he admitted it was "made up" in. I am questioning your (and the Daily Mail's) interpretation of what he said in the interview he had with the BBC.

You originally misconstrued his words to mean something completely different. I have a lot of questions regarding the theory of AGW and the data involved in getting it, and definitely don't agree that there is enough information to indicate that we should call for government intervention, but I will not watch words be completely misconstrued. I too saw the Daily Mail article over the weekend. I looked up the actual interview in question to see what it is he was saying and no where did he claim there was no warming in the last 15 years, nor did he claim anything was made up or a hoax.


It tells me you know very little in regard to the hockey stick graph. The time frame in question is 1995 to 2010, but the hockey stick graph used by the IPCC in 2001 stops at the end of 1999. Data not used in the hockey stick graph, because it didn't exist yet, says nothing about the hockey stick graph.

I corrected myself by using the actual quote, rather than posting my opinion. (the one where I incorrectly used the words "made up").

About the hockey stick graph, it clearly shows a massive increase in temperature from 1950- 2000. Although after the interview, I felt it was quite wrong, especially after Jones stated that there was no statistically significant warming since 1995. The hockey stick graph shows a massive increase in only 1/3 of that time span. (1995- 2000) So we now have atleast 6 years of warming that is now debunked. Right?

 

[FoolKiller]

About the hockey stick graph, it clearly shows a massive increase in temperature from 1950- 2000. Although after the interview, I felt it was quite wrong, especially after Jones stated that there was no statistically significant warming since 1995. The hockey stick graph shows a massive increase in only 1/3 of that time span. (1995- 2000) So we now have atleast 6 years of warming that is now debunked. Right?

Not if you actually understand the graph. It shows a trend of growth, not a constant, steady increase year over year. On top of that the 1995 to 2010 data still shows an average of 0.12C increase per decade, but the sample size is too small to determine if it is significant to show an ongoing trend. Trying to weed that down to a 6 year sample size makes it even less significant, especially since you aren't even looking at the individual data for that six years, but attempting to say that the 15 year average can be used to say anything about the first six, which it can't, because it is an average. If you want to debunk any trend over a time period of this nature you need to show incorrect data that is statistically significant, which likely means 20-30 years worth. Fifteen years isn't enough to say yay or nay, and 6 years clearly isn't.

In short: You cannot take him at his word that a 15 year average trend is statistically insignificant, but then turn around a say that shows a 6 year average trend is.

 

[Sam48]

And do you not think there is more pressure for them to be open about their research now? Under extra scrutiny do you not thing we'd have heard about something else? Or are you happy to believe that because one Professor at one University in one country has been found to have been a bit spurious, then the whole concept of global warming is therefore null and void?...

1st sentence- yes, I do, but they'll continue there research as if it had never happened anyway because of what you said earlier about the fact that it's just one university.

Sorry, I didn't quite understand your second sentence. Anyway, you changed the subject from the leaked emails to the professor.

EDIT: @Foolkiller- Thanks for the insight.

 

[homeforsummer]

1st sentence- yes, I do, but they'll continue there research as if it had never happened anyway because of what you said earlier about the fact that it's just one university.

So if they're continuing their research, would that not be a suggestion that they're still searching for answers rather than "well, we made it all up anyway, what's next?"...

Sorry, I didn't quite understand your second sentence.

I was asking if you're happy to believe that global warming doesn't exist based solely on your own scepticism coupled with some dubious misquotes from a dubious source, rather that considering the all evidence to support and deny the theory of global warming first?

Anyway, you changed the subject from the leaked emails to the professor.

Err... well you brought up the subject of the emails... the original discussion was about the Professor, not the emails. I'm just continuing the original discussion...

 

[Sam48]

So if they're continuing their research, would that not be a suggestion that they're still searching for answers rather than "well, we made it all up anyway, what's next?"...

I was asking if you're happy to believe that global warming doesn't exist based solely on your own scepticism coupled with some dubious misquotes from a dubious source, rather that considering the all evidence to support and deny the theory of global warming first?

Err... well you brought up the subject of the emails... the original discussion was about the Professor, not the emails. I'm just continuing the original discussion...

Paragraph 1- No.

Paragraph 2- I said earlier,the other universities would continue their research as if it had never happened. The other universities want nothing to do with Anglia's problems. They will probably never admit they "made up" any data at all.

Paragraph 3- We were talking about the emails at the time.

 

[Dotini]

Up until now I have generally accepted global warming as a fact, and that man's activities since the industrial revolution have something, but not everything, to do with it.

But now I have come across information which leads me to think again. Here it is:http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp

 

[FoolKiller]

I did find one question and answer in the Phil Jones interview that I find to be a bit telling, regarding how politics and the media have managed to distort this debate:

When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

I find that an interesting statement. It says nothing against him, his character, or even the research, but it does say a lot about people like Al Gore and the media who have tried to make it out that discussing uncertainties and asking questions is only done by those being paid by oil companies and special interest groups.

 

[homeforsummer]

Paragraph 1- No.

So, what, they're now going to pretend to research for the forseeable future? Science is just going to give up bothering to discover more about climate change?...

Do you honestly believe that this whole area of science is just hocus-pocus?

Paragraph 2- I said earlier,the other universities would continue their research as if it had never happened. The other universities want nothing to do with Anglia's problems. They will probably never admit they "made up" any data at all.

FoolKiller already mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. Apparently East Anglia are stalling over it a little but it's there to provide means of access to any information provided it isn't already available to the public by other means (i.e. in a University's case, publication) and doesn't have an adverse affect on the way an organisation is run. I presume EA are using the latter as a claim, but then I also presume that the UK isn't the only country with an FoIA, and indeed certainly isn't the only university that publishes research.

Science is very fickle. Universities and other organisations will publish research on the subject. If there are holes in any of it, people will find them. Hell, people are searching for them with intent at the moment.

You can't just make up research. If you do, people will discover it even without email leaks, because so many other people are researching the same thing as you. It irons out anomalies and shows up dodgy results like a sore thumb.

If you dropped the cynicism for just a second and actually tried to find out more rather than just joining the "AGW is bull****" bandwagon you might be surprised how much respected research there is in the field.

 

[Sam48]

So, what, they're now going to pretend to research for the forseeable future? Science is just going to give up bothering to discover more about climate change?...

Do you honestly believe that this whole area of science is just hocus-pocus?



FoolKiller already mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. Apparently East Anglia are stalling over it a little but it's there to provide means of access to any information provided it isn't already available to the public by other means (i.e. in a University's case, publication) and doesn't have an adverse affect on the way an organisation is run. I presume EA are using the latter as a claim, but then I also presume that the UK isn't the only country with an FoIA, and indeed certainly isn't the only university that publishes research.

Science is very fickle. Universities and other organisations will publish research on the subject. If there are holes in any of it, people will find them. Hell, people are searching for them with intent at the moment.

You can't just make up research. If you do, people will discover it even without email leaks, because so many other people are researching the same thing as you. It irons out anomalies and shows up dodgy results like a sore thumb.

If you dropped the cynicism for just a second and actually tried to find out more rather than just joining the "AGW is bull****" bandwagon you might be surprised how much respected research there is in the field.

To answer that all at once, the (some number) universities that share and review data with each other are all "in on it" so to speak. The leaked emails basically confirm that (Dotini's link helps explain that a better than I could).
Since Jones's interview and the leaked emails, I'm sure the universities, other than Anglia (for now), are trying to come up with new ways to more accurately monitor the climate. Before Jones's interview and the leaked emails, these universities where riding the invisible heat wave that they all said was occurring, but in reality was not. Below is an example of it.

Back in 2007, reports (US) pointed out that the lack of snow in Washington was due to global warming, as DC only received 4 inches of snow that year. (which was belong average) Now (2010) DC has gotten well more than 3 feet of snow this year (far above average), and the climatologists are still blaming it on global warming. They have contradicted themselves completely.

 

[Famine]

I'm sure the universities, other than Anglia

East Anglia. Anglia University is somewhere completely different.

It's worth noting also that lack of, then increased snowfall is not prima facie evidence that "AGW is made up" or a contradiction. In fact any unusual weather patterns are corroborative evidence of a change in climate. It's not proof that AGW exists, just that there has been a change in climate.

I should also add that Jones's CRU group was the first producer of climate change statistics and all the institutions with which the data was shared were merely in receipt of that data - the IPCC and the UK Meteorological Office being two such institutions. If Jones falsified data, as alleged, the other institutions aren't "in on it", merely conducting research with data they were unaware was false. In fact the AGW-supporting community ought to be considerably more vocal about the allegations than the AGW-denying community, because it means they've potentially wasted years of research and money investigating deliberately incorrect data, rather than just proven right.


Tack onto that the notion that the data, if proven false, may merely be exaggerating a trend rather than completely fabricating one and you're still in a world where "Jones has admitted AGW is a hoax" is simply a misrepresentation.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's worth noting also that lack of, then increased snowfall is not prima facie evidence that "AGW is made up" or a contradiction. In fact any unusual weather patterns are corroborative evidence of a change in climate. It's not proof that AGW exists, just that there has been a change in climate.

My issue with people in the media that have attempted to tie current snowstorms to AGW in some way is that they seem to forget that there is a cyclical, temporary climate effect currently occurring that led the US to be warned by NOAA that this kind of winter may happen.

Unfortunately, politics and media have turned what is an unusual, but not implausible or completely unpredictable event, into a public argument about AGW. My best guess is that no politician wants to mention that the possibility of something like this happening was brought up because 1) their snow emergency budgets are already blown (they didn't heed the warning, so they get some blame for conditions), and 2) it allows them to make political power grabs by pointing fingers at each other.

 

[Sam48]

In fact the AGW-supporting community ought to be considerably more vocal about the allegations than the AGW-denying community, because it means they've potentially wasted years of research and money investigating deliberately incorrect data, rather than just proven right.

I would think both the AGW supporters and deniers would be opposed to the wasted years of research. (which technically wasn't research at all, just one big "fill in the blank" game.)

 

[Famine]

I would think both the AGW supporters and deniers would be opposed to the wasted years of research. (which technically wasn't research at all, just one big "fill in the blank" game.)

To the researchers conducting the research without knowing the figures they were receiving were false (if it's shown they are), it certainly wasn't a big fill-in-the-blank game.

 

[Sam48]

To the researchers conducting the research without knowing the figures they were receiving were false (if it's shown they are), it certainly wasn't a big fill-in-the-blank game.

Correct, but I was referring to the universities.