Skip to comments.Hacked climate e-mail rebutted by scientists (public doubt about irrefutable scientific facts)
Posted on 12/05/2009 6:59:50 AM PST by Libloather
Hacked climate e-mail rebutted by scientists
Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, December 5, 2009
A group of the nation's top scientists defended research on global climate change Friday against what they called a politically motivated smear campaign designed to foster public doubt about irrefutable scientific facts.
The allegations came after skeptics seized upon a series of hacked e-mails at England's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit as evidence of a climate change hoax.
Drumbeat of skepticism
Despite this, the drumbeat of skepticism about global warming has never been louder. The Internet and conservative news programs have been flooded over the past week with breathless accounts of alleged scientific fraud.
Exhibit A in the controversy are the stolen e-mails, which include messages between academics in the United States and Britain talking about getting greenhouse skeptics "ousted" and referring to research "tricks."
Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia research unit, temporarily stepped down Tuesday after the university began an investigation into the stolen files, which officials called a "criminal breach."
Mountain of evidence
Schmidt and Michael Oppenheimer, the director of the Science, Technology and Environmental Policy department at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, said the mountain of scientific evidence pointing to human-caused climate change is all available for scientific review by any skeptic.
They said a colder than normal October in the U.S. - often cited by warming skeptics - does not make for a trend, no matter how often it is repeated on blogs and cable television.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Isn't that what warmers do?
We cant let the MSM win this.
Best ClimateGate clips (show everybody you know):
“They said a colder than normal October in the U.S. - often cited by warming skeptics - does not make for a trend, no matter how often it is repeated on blogs and cable television.”
Ya, well what is 11 years of declining global temperatures called you freaking morons.
They all use Hanson’s and the CRU’s cooked data to say there’s been no decline - hence to hide the decline...
These people are pathetic. Science not.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."
This absurdity of this statement from the same people who point to every single hot day as "proof of global warming" speaks for itself.
Given the drumbeat is a “politically motivated smear campaign”, the ‘scientists’ are better served by examining the poor quality of the CRUminal temperature adjustment computer code. A “smear campaign” cannot change the inevitable conclusion that the temperature record is deliberately manipulated by advocates and an accurate record is unknown at present.
“group of the nation’s top scientists defended research on global climate”
The Press Conference was put together by the liberal group “Center for American Progress” ... it was a political stunt by the embattled scientists caught making bad statements and doing bad things.
“hacked e-mails “
NO EMAILS WERE ‘HACKED’ NOR WERE THEY STOLEN - THEY WERE “LEAKED”.
Too many lies in one article to bother rebutting.
Uh excuse me a second. Didn't they destroy the original data when they moved into a new facility? I think the leaked emails are like a hand grenade thrown into Algore's bunker.
Now that's funny...did it include Algore?
This article is written with every imaginable slant included, beginning with the “stolen” emails. Comical, not serious.
I just can’t get over all the “irrefutable” assertions by the warmists. They non-experts have no right challenging their “facts” as they call them. But when actual scientists (i.e Fred Singer, Tim Ball, etal) do challenge their facts, they ignore them.
Michael Oppenheimer joined the Princeton faculty in 2002 after more than two decades with Environmental Defense, a non-governmental environmental organization, where he served as chief scientist and manager of the Climate and Air Program.
Oppenheimer is a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, serving most recently as a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. He is currently a member of the National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on Alternative Liquid Transportation Fuels. He is also a science advisor to Environmental Defense.
His interests include science and policy of the atmosphere, particularly climate change and its impacts. Much of his research aims to understand the potential for “dangerous” outcomes of increasing levels of greenhouse gases by exploring the effects of global warming on ecosystems such as coral reefs, on the ice sheets, and on sea level. He also studies the role played by nongovernmental organizations in the policy arena, the role of scientific learning and scientific assessment in decisions on problems of global change, and the potential value of precautionary frameworks. Oppenheimer is the author of more than 80 articles published in professional journals and is co-author (with Robert H. Boyle) of a 1990 book, Dead Heat: The Race Against The Greenhouse Effect. Ph.D., University of Chicago.
Oppenheimer directs the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy (STEP), has a joint appointment with the Department of Geosciences, and is a Faculty Associate of the Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences program and the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies.
Well at least we've gone past the "ignore" phase and are now into the "attack" phase.
Write this clowns name down....because now we have this:
No mention of snowfall near Houston?
All the Damn Data that is Worth to Hide Proves AGW is not a scientific argument.
These guys all need to go to prison.
“They said a colder than normal October in the U.S. - often cited by warming skeptics - does not make for a trend, no matter how often it is repeated on blogs and cable television”
How about no warming since 1999 - it that a trend yet?
I’m pretty sure 99% of the skeptics realize that a colder October doesn’t necessarily indicate a long-term trend. But we’re also tired of see features about global warming every time some ski resort has a bad winter, and we appreciate the opportunity to send the AGW cultists into a tizzy by playing their game back at them.
It's certainly a mountain of something.
We need a 5 step or 7 step phase on what are the signs of a denier...
AGW BIGFOOT DENIER HERE !!
Let them call us BIGFOOTERS, I would see it as a honor...
Over the last 20 years, the US government spent $32 billion on climate research, yet has failed to find any evidence that carbon dioxide emissions significantly affect temperature or represent a danger. Government agencies, the private sector, and universities were the recipients of this money. These organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.
The feds also spent another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. Solar and wind-power generation of electricity can be a supplemental supply, but these methods could not compete with fossil fuels without a subsidy. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the myth.
The ethanol industry is founded solely on the myth that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels, even though the U.S. has abundant supplies.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Bailout bill) contained $3.4 billion for research and experimentation in the area of carbon sequestration burying carbon dioxide generated by fossil fuel plants. There are also, really wild schemes for geoengineering, schemes to block the sun with mirrors, or seed the atmosphere with sulfur to produce more clouds.
On the world commodities market, trading carbon credits generated $126 billion in 2008, and big banks are collecting fees, and some project a market worth $2 trillion. Al Gores venture capital firm, Hara Software which makes software to track greenhouse gas emissions, stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation. If the myth is destroyed, this market will evaporate.
Back in 2007, a coalition of major corporations and environmental groups formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) to lobby for cap & trade. The companies planned to profit (at least in the short term) from either the cap-and-trade provisions or from selling high-priced, politically-favored (if not mandated) so-called green technology to the rest of us whether we need it or not, and regardless of whether it produces any environmental or societal benefits.
Corporate USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, Exelon, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, John Deer & Co, PG&E Corporation, and PNM Resources.
Has science been co-opted by greed and ideology; has government been co-opted by scientific elitists?
In his farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave this warning:
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nations scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
This echoes a perceptive Conservatives vs. Liberals meme, in that it appears that human-caused global warming "skeptics" get angry when people tell lies about them, while human-caused global warming disaster "alarmists" such as the "scientist" quoted in the article get angry when people tell the truth about them...
He responds to emails at his Real Climate blog and is approachable.
He has at times disagreed with Michael Mann, which is funny for it is obvious the two are indeed in bed together.
You B.A.D.! ;-P
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.