Why is no one reporting on climategate scandal?
Let's start with the challenge to AGW and the Carbon offset proponents I linked to earlier... these are the problems that climate scientists have found issue with:
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate; 3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate; 4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities; 5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes; 6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past; 7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions; 8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes; 9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency; 10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.
Science and Technology Experts Well Qualified in Climate Science
Science and Technology Experts in Other Related Disciplines
Here we have a direct challenge to AGW proponents by numerous experts in the field. This is one reason that a global tax either by assessed fine...carbon offset or indirectly through energy cost... is premature. This is one reason I consider 'Climategate' a big deal.' Climategate incriminates those scientists implicated in the emails... who enbody a much wider set than the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University. Professor Michael Mann... implicated in numerous emails... is the creator of the oft referenced 'hockey stick graph' .. the infamous graph shows a sharp incline of temperatures in the last 100 years... omitting the medieval warm period when temperatures where at least on par with todays highs. Emails discovered in the climategate indicate that the medieval warming period was intentionally covered up and the false data upheld by the United Nations governing body on climate research and apparently Penn State Universities climate research body. East Anglia's CRU has influenced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as well as the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. East Anglia's CRU is intimately connected with one of the honored bastions of climate research... Real Climate. Real Climate's contributing body consists of scientists implicated by the 'Climategate' emails or by scientists associated with the implicated scientists through shared studies. Dismissing 'Climategate' as the unprofessional shortcomings of some backwater research institute is not a fair portrayal.
Considering the matter logically... if there are plenty of corroborating studies that have yet to be proven fraudulent... why would any research facility need to change their own findings?... to deny dissidents the ability to peer review their work?... to attempt to stifle freedom of information actions that would allow for review of their data? What can be deduced about the corroborating data? If one set of data coincides with a different set of data that has been shown to be concocted in house... the only logical conclusion is that both sets share the same origin... the only difference being evidence for fraud has been established for one instead of the other.
Everyone except for AGW apologists have correctly described 'Climategate' as a lethal blow to the entire theory.
On a somewhat related note regarding the investigation of Penn State's Prof. Mann
just for anecdotal value.
...'Another example of blowing things out of proportion'...
Where am I guilty of exaggeration?
You are aware that although the emails were hacked via the East Anglia University CRU... the emails themselves connect to various AGW proponents across the globe? Professor Michael Mann is being investigated by his employer... Penn State University for his involvement in the coverup and the implicit role he played verified by his emails.
AGW theory is far from a scientific consensus...
please follow the links at the bottom of the URL provided for a list of signatory dissident scientists
'All you have to do is Google Climate Gate to see that some in the internet media are using these hacked emails to dismiss anthropogenic global warming entirely. That's called blowing things out of proportion'
This is your opinion. I disagree... but that's why we're here.
'An agenda-driven scam...yeah, right.'
Yeah... right!... I am referring to the carbon offset scam... are you aware that various banking houses... energy companies... and popular politicos... eg George Soros... Al Gore... are deeply invested in the CCS technologies and futures trade in place to recoup trillions of dollars paid by carbon emission fines... taxes and offsets? Does this fact stand as a conflict of interest for Soros and Gore? Perhaps there is a vested interest in pressing an AGW consensus where one does not exist... perhaps even a motivating force to 'cook the books'... I have no proof... but as one of your provided links mentions... where there is smoke...
'Nevermind that there have been several instances of tampering with reports and research to downplay the impacts of climate change, or even question its existence, in both the public and private sectors.'
OK... I call... any evidence you have that there is wrongdoing...near the scale of what we are calling Climategate... lay it out for us.
I am very environmentally aware. I know that we have to live here... and I want to live free of pollutants... I have always taken measures to distance myself from the man made poisons... proven and alleged... but I don't feel threatened by or guilty for the carbon that is essential for life on this planet... nor should anyone.
**OK... I call... any evidence you have that there is wrongdoing...near the scale of what we are calling Climategate... lay it out for us. **
Well, I obviously don't consider ClimateGate as big a deal as you do. But since you make the claim that there are people with financial motivations to speak out on AGW, you should consider that there are global warming skeptics have their studies funded by oil companies.
The Exxon thing is fairly well known and certainly was a big deal. And Richard Lindzen, a skeptic who claims that scientists lose their funding if their findings don't support AGW, is himself funded by OPEC, Western Fuels, and even the US government. There's conflict of interest everywhere, including among AGW opponents. You talk about cover-ups...you should read Chris Mooney's book, The Republican War on Science, where you'll find a very convincing case that there is a very active effort to suppress findings that point to AGW.
*** the emails themselves connect to various AGW proponents across the globe? Professor Michael Mann is being investigated by his employer***
I'm interested to know the results of those investigations. I posted links to scientists who did their own reviews of the CRU data and believe this who scandal is greatly exaggerated, and gave very good explanations as to why. But once again, I point out that this has no impact on the volumes of research supporting the existence of climate change done by other scientists, and I have yet to see a shred of evidence that this is some massive conspiracy, from you or anyone else.
I never claimed in any of my posts that there aren't legitimate disputes over climate change. I'm also well aware that the world of science is not free from tampering by politicians, business leaders, special interest groups, and above all else, money. Finally, I'm not a fan of the type of sensationalism and scare tactics that people like Al Gore use. But ClimateGate smacks of sensationalism as well.
none of which point to a global warming conspiracy or that it's all a hoax put forth by leftist radicals.
NO... just that the small group of like minded scientists peer reviewed one anothers research... changed contradictory findings... tried to intimidate skeptical scientists... thwarted FOIA attempts... and peformed their research in the dark.
Cherry picking the emails?... that is sort of like a criminal suspect complaining that investigators cherry picked the days they questioned his whereabouts... lol... he had a perfectly clean alibi all the other days.
I don't think it is being blown out of proportion as our president is currently meeting with global leaders discussing a global tax of CO2.
This is another banking scam... literally a tax on breathing... the hucksters who are advocating this offset taxation are deeply invested in the CCS technologies that we will be directly paying.
Another example of blowing things out of proportion. The existence of climate change doesn't depend on the East Anglia Climate Research Unit's scientists. But, some research has already shown that there really isn't any problem with the data.
All you have to do is Google "Climate Gate" to see that some in the internet media are using these hacked emails to dismiss anthropogenic global warming entirely. That's called "blowing things out of proportion". An agenda-driven scam...yeah, right. Nevermind that there have been several instances of tampering with reports and research to downplay the impacts of climate change, or even question its existence, in both the public and private sectors.
You've asked this before (deleted). It doesn't make any sense. This story is all over the news. Absolutely everyone is reporting it. How did you hear about it if no one reported it?
The question I think you mean to ask is 'Why don't more people feel as I do about the climategate scandal'?
It is being reported on...and is being blown way out of proportion. It's not so much a scandal as a cherry-picking of sections from emails written in private between scientists, none of which point to a global warming conspiracy or that it's all a hoax put forth by leftist radicals.