cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Climategate

There was an interview on the radio yesterday with Michael Mann who was involved with the so called climategate.

Interesting to hear his points.

He has a book out now and it was apparently given bad reviews before it was even published.

 

Lots to think about whether you accept the science about climate change or not.

You can listen to the interview here

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2012/03/14/climate-activist-michael-mann/

even has quotes from some of your would be presidents.

Talks of the difference between sceptics and deniers

 

The following link talks about Mann and some of the tactics used against his and other climate scientists findings

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/02/mann-climate.html

The work of such early denialists as Singer and Seitz was widely debunked long ago, but it is still frequently cited on the blogosphere, illustrating one of the many problems faced by those who advocate action against climate change: The science is complex and its advances are published in highly technical scientific journals, making it easy for contrarians to cite old and faulty research that is swallowed whole by a credulous audience who don't really understand the science but are happy to latch onto evidence, no matter how tenuous, supporting their political view that climate change is best ignored. And that's where 2012's most important book on climate change comes in.

Pennsylvania State University professor Michael E. Mann may be the most vilified climate expert since Al Gore (though NASA's James Hansen might be able to challenge that title). He is one of the key creators of the so-called hockey stick climate graph, which became something of a global political sensation when it was cited prominently in the IPCC's third assessment report in 2001. Unlike the dreary statistics of most climate research, the graph was an easy-to-grasp, dramatic representation of the climate problem. Using data from ice cores, tree rings and corals, it plotted global temperature averages for the last 1,000 years, and showed something explosive: mundane ups and downs for nearly a millennium, followed by a dramatic rise starting in the 19th century (the blade of the hockey stick) and leading to global temperatures higher today than ever before since the Norman Conquest. The graph made Mann a scientific celebrity, but it also made him a target.

Rightly seeing Mann's graph as a powerful call to action for environmentalists, the denial machine -- which by the late 1990s had been honed into a powerful tool indeed, with multiple think tanks and industry groups arising such as the Heartland Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Petroleum Institute and many others -- went in to overdrive to fight passage of a climate bill in Congress. In his soon-to-be-published memoir, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars," Mann refers to the tactics used against him and other prominent climatologists by these groups as the "Serengeti strategy:" an effort to defeat the herd by separating and picking off individual members, like lions hunting the weakest zebra on the veldt. Mann was subject to venomous personal attacks (including threats to his family), multiple congressional investigations by Republican lawmakers hoping to subvert the findings of he and other scientists, and a barrage of studies purporting to refute the data in Mann's hockey stick graph.


17 Replies
Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Climategate

I would like to see a graph going back 100,000 years, or more, and see if there are more 'hockey stick' formations along the way.

Did the temps 'hockey stick' down during the ice ages, and hockey stick back up, after them? 
Are we at the highest temps in history?

Were there other periods of temperature spikes?

If so, what would the graph look like, from those 'hot' periods?

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Climategate

"The work of such early denialists as Singer and Seitz was widely debunked long ago, but it is still frequently cited on the blogosphere"

 

In science there is no such thing as a denialist. That is how scientific fact is proven, it stands up against scrutiny. Now the globalwarmist have changed the debate from man made global warming to climate change. That is because man made global warming DOES NOT stand up to scruntiny. Climate change is easliy proven, the climate changes every minute of every day, has since the begining of time and will always do so. NO ONE denies climate change, what is called into question is if man is the cause od global warming.

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Climategate

If you can listen to the interview I think your question would be answered.

In all the studies they have done the difference this time is the speed that the temperatures have risen. That is unprecedented from previous times that they can get data for.

 

A lot of the article and interview is about how 'deniers' (not sceptics) of climate change put out erroneous or info that has been proven wrong and use that to convince people that the change is not happening or at least not caused by man.

Again he points out a tactic that has been used of attacking a few key individuals even though the 'herd' of scientists still agree with the data, info and theories that they have published.

 

All scientists are sceptics in that they will look for errors or misinterpretations but the 'deniers' ignore the facts and just 'believe' in things that do not stand up to scientific findings.

 

BTW if you check you will find that all investigations of the 'climategate' 'scandle' has shown there was nothing wrong in what was being done.

Interview also mentions the terminology used by scientists for example the word 'trick' has a different meaning to those in the scientific community when talking of their findings.

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Climategate


@r3020 wrote:

"The work of such early denialists as Singer and Seitz was widely debunked long ago, but it is still frequently cited on the blogosphere"

 

In science there is no such thing as a denialist. That is how scientific fact is proven, it stands up against scrutiny. Now the globalwarmist have changed the debate from man made global warming to climate change. That is because man made global warming DOES NOT stand up to scruntiny. Climate change is easliy proven, the climate changes every minute of every day, has since the begining of time and will always do so. NO ONE denies climate change, what is called into question is if man is the cause od global warming.


You are correct 'in science there is not many who are denialists' most are sceptics, indeed any scientist who is any good is a sceptic of all things at all times. That is how they advance knowledge by always questioning everything and looking for a better answer. 

The difference with deniers is they do not accept scientific findings, do not question the facts, the data or the theory but just reject all findings and  stand by their 'belief' rather than accept true facts.

Please give some facts and scientificly backed up papers that show man does not have any impact on climate.

That is a widely accepted fact that has been shown over and over and therefore accepted by scientists in the climatic field.

What else is the reason for the rapidly rising CO2 levels if not man?


What happens when carbon dioxide levels skyrocket? Most climate scientists think they know the answer: global warming.

But to determine just how high temperatures may climb and how climate patterns may shift, researchers may need to pinpoint, for comparison, a time in our planet's past when a similar carbon dioxide jump happened.

Doing that may have just gotten a lot tougher—a new study says atmospheric carbon dioxide levels haven't been this high in more than two million years.

.....................

The study team, led by geochemist Bärbel Hönisch, found evidence disproving the theory that the longer, stronger ice ages that kicked in about 850,000 years ago were caused by a steady, ongoing drop in CO2. Instead, CO2 levels seesawed over the 2.1 million years, dropping during ice ages then bouncing back.

What's more, the average CO2 level during warm periods was 38 percent lower than the average we see today.

That's significant, because it means that scientists will have to look back even further in time to find global warming answers.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090618-co2-highest-carbon-dioxide_2.html

old man
Senior Contributor

Re: Climategate

It isn't a question whether there is global warming. !0,000 years ago, the glaciers came into the midwest. Now they are gone.

The question is whether man contributes to the problem and how what can be done about it if man does. It is also the question whether the cure will be worse than the problem.

There is nothing that anybody does that does not affect anyone, or something else.

Sometimes, there may even be improvements

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Climategate

I agree.  I keep hearing that we must 'stop' or 'reverse' the change, yet I have yet to see any proof that the 'change' is for the worst.


Corn yields have been 'changing' for years and years, which I also attribute to human activity, but yet I don't hear much call to reverse the trend, or te get yields back 'where it was 30 years ago'.

 

In fact, I bet if we took a history of corn yields, for the last thousand years, we would have a very pronounced 'hockey stick' formation in the last 100 years or so, as well.  My point of this, is not to make fun, or argue, but to point out that 'change' is not always 'bad'.

 

Another thing about stastics, is that you can make them mean almost anything you want.

For aguments sake, I'll just agree, and say the climate is warming quickly,

I think we can both agree, that Co2 is rising quickly, and also

corn yields have risen quickly.

 

What if the 'cure' to this climate change, drops both the Co2 levels, as well as corn yields to what we saw back when Nixon was in office.  Would the people of the world be better, or worse off, than they are right now?

 

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Climategate


@old man wrote:

It isn't a question whether there is global warming. !0,000 years ago, the glaciers came into the midwest. Now they are gone.

The question is whether man contributes to the problem and how what can be done about it if man does. It is also the question whether the cure will be worse than the problem.

There is nothing that anybody does that does not affect anyone, or something else.

Sometimes, there may even be improvements


I think the scientific community has answered that question.

The public has not accepted the answer and since we have few leaders in the political community the politicians have gone with the crowd and pooh poohed the scientific answer too.

 

What to do is probably simply answered by reducing CO2 emissions, how to do that is the big unanswered question since few people want to do without their energy consumption for what they see as only a benefit for the future if they would even agree that it is a necessary benefit.


Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Climategate


@Nebrfarmr wrote:

I agree.  I keep hearing that we must 'stop' or 'reverse' the change, yet I have yet to see any proof that the 'change' is for the worst.


Corn yields have been 'changing' for years and years, which I also attribute to human activity, but yet I don't hear much call to reverse the trend, or te get yields back 'where it was 30 years ago'.

 

In fact, I bet if we took a history of corn yields, for the last thousand years, we would have a very pronounced 'hockey stick' formation in the last 100 years or so, as well.  My point of this, is not to make fun, or argue, but to point out that 'change' is not always 'bad'.

 

Another thing about stastics, is that you can make them mean almost anything you want.

For aguments sake, I'll just agree, and say the climate is warming quickly,

I think we can both agree, that Co2 is rising quickly, and also

corn yields have risen quickly.

 

What if the 'cure' to this climate change, drops both the Co2 levels, as well as corn yields to what we saw back when Nixon was in office.  Would the people of the world be better, or worse off, than they are right now?

 


Yes increasing temperatures will not all be bad.

Heck no one in Ontario will say our past winter was 'bad' with little snow and warm conditions which did not take much fuel for heat.

But our benefit is someone else's problem.

In the Arctic buildings are being abandonded as the perma frost melts and they settle into the ground and are destroyed.

Ice roads to supply isolated communities do not form for long in the winter which raises the costs of transport which then has to rely on air.

As ocean levels rise there are people who are forced to move from low lying ground.

There are costs and because of the rapid changes many life forms are stressed to change their habits or living range to be able to survive since they can not hop a plane, train or boat to flee to an environment where they can live.

 

As for corn the rise in yields has been because of man's actions in breeding, feeding and protecting the plants. Some of those actions are responsible for the CO2 emissions that science indicates is responsible for the warming.

So yes the big question may be what can we change or cut back that will not leave people in this world hungry since we seem more than willing to reproduce beyond the ability of the world to support our species.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Climategate

The climate has always been changing. Sometimes there is a lot of artic and sometimes not.

 

Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959. Image from NAVSOURCE

 

snip-

For example, one crew member aboard the USS Skate which surfaced at the North Pole in 1959 and numerous other locations during Arctic cruises in 1958 and 1959 said:

“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/