Climategate....

I'm all confused now. The recent release by a hacker/mole/whistleblower of documents produced by the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) seems to point to a conspiracy (get 'yer tinfoil hats here..) by Climate Change scientists to manipulate and falsify the evidence supporting man-made climate change caused by us producing too much CO2.

Now, given that up until now, I've always supported the cause that we're responsible and we should do something about it, I feel a bit of a twat. So I thought I'd ask some of the sciency types on here for thier opinion.

What the fuck is going on? Has the whole Man Made Global Warming Theory just exploded?

Answers on a postcard please.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 4:29, 56 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

Big Problem, Scientists are human
There is no such thing as an unbiased Scientist. Everyone of them needs the job they have, and they will spin their evidence to suit. Look what happened to the scientist who invented GAIA, Lovelock, when he changed his mind and started to say nuclear could be an answer. He would have been crucified in his own front garden if the greenies had enough strength to errect a cross.

People believe there opinions are right, and do not want to change their minds.

Anyway, it is up to you Mr Legless to decide yourself, based on evidence and reports you can get hold of, and your direct experience to decide whether Global Warming (I prefer Climate Change) is happening. Is there less rain where you are generally since you were a kid? Does the spring come earlier every year? Have the ice caps melted?

Keep your own observations. Make a reasoned decision as to the question, then act if you think action is required.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 7:29, Reply)

^^this
Also, OH NO, 1 OUT OF 1800+ STUDIES WAS FIDDLED A BIT.

Whereas there are about 10 studies "opposing" climate change and half of them are shifty-looking things sponsored by lumber and oil companies.
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 7:32, Reply)

From my point of view
Climate change, if happening, is going in the wrong direction. There's a lot more rain now than when I was a kid (maybe because I grow up in Tenerife and I'm now in Manchester...)

No, really, climate change might be happening (there are no records from long enough to check this) but it might be part of the Earth cycles (remember all the ice age and exploding volcanos??)

About scientists being human, yes, that is true. It is true as well that if climate change is really due to the human action, in order to stop it we need to know what we're doing wrong; so scientists making us believe we're creating hell to make us change our habbits, without it been true, makes a big difference. The difference between scaring people to help the planet (and its people) or scaring people just to get some personal benefit (being recognition or money, I don't care)

They lie to us like this, scaring the shit out of us, and they want us to believe them again?
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 7:56, Reply)

Hang on a minute
You are a process engineer. Does that not mean you make science work for a useful purpose? You trust what they tell you because when you replicate it, and the process works, you have solid evidence that they are right.

In climate change there is insufficient evidence, and may never be until the last scientist croaks his last words, "I told you so."

Your task is to evaluate what you can see, and there are plenty of records going back hundreds of years showing what the climate was alike at different locations.

I personally do not remember the ice age, but I think I know it happened, because there seems to be evidence to substantiate it happening.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:14, Reply)

On the contrary
There's a shitload of evidence supporting global warming. It is happening, no question. It's part of the natural global cycles and in recent years the temperatures have been increasing more rapidly.

What there is doubt about is how much (if any) of it is a direct result of human activity. But the evidence is strongly in favour of anthropological effects.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:17, Reply)

I apologise for error
I meant evidence that human activity was primary cause
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:02, Reply)

Exactly
I believe it if it can be proved. And they can't prove it. They have no way to demonstrate that the climate change (if it's happening; this year is being colder than last) is our fault.

As I've said a lot of times already, I'm all for reducing or stoping the waste. Recycle and reuse. Don't take your car when you can walk or use public transport. Don't leave your lights on.

On the same manner, at work, I'm all for reducing emissions and design equipment as environmentaly friendly as possible.

I don't like people scaring me and using "scientific prove" that hasn't been proved to make me do things and act!! I don't like the blackmail!!
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:19, Reply)

Marry Me

( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:26, Reply)

Oh, well
I'm sorry, I'm taken... But as I said before, if my bf doesn't propose soon I'll let you know.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:34, Reply)

I'll hold you to that
*makes note in diary*
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:44, Reply)

One year being cooler than the next proves nothing.
That'd be to confuse weather with climate.

Imagine a wavy line running left-to-right. Now tilt it, so the right end is higher than the left. It's still possible for point p on the x-axis to be higher on the y-axis than p+1, though the trend would still be for the values represented on the x-axis to be proporional to those on the y.


Apologies for lack of correct terminology. I hope you get the picture, though.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:50, Reply)

I don't get science
but waste is waste regardless is my philosophy.

I see the whole conservation thing as a way to save a few quid which can only be a good thing. If trees and critters get saved by coinkydink, then nice one!

rafter
baz
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 7:32, Reply)

Spot on that man
Even a simple philosophy is valid.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 7:35, Reply)

Totally agree!

(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 7:58, Reply)

Even more surprising
was to find on the newspaper yesterday that the hole in the ozone layer has stopped the Antartic from melting, and that once it's fully recovered, the temperature in the pole will increase by 3oC.

I don't know what to believe anymore. I'm all for recycling and not wasting, but that's just common sense, I think. Now, making us feel guilty for something that's not our fault so someone has an excuse to take our money in the name of science and protection of the environment...

What'll be next.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 7:47, Reply)

I found it in English
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100018432/newsflash-hole-in-ozone-layer-a-good-thing/
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 7:49, Reply)

Just read her biography at the top of the page
then read the title of that article. Now think.

It's hardly a balanced piece is it.

The title alone makes it a fairly worthless piece of journalism, as does the sloppy writing in the first paragraph (i didn't read any more of it) regardless of the effect of the shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer, it's presence in the first place (the cause of which was vigorously denied by people with a vested interest in CFC production) clearly wasn't very good in general as it does lead to more UV radiation getting through which has lead to more skin cancer. Any journalist who reduces the effects of anything to "good" and "bad" or in the daily mails case to "causes cancer" and "saves you from cancer" is shit journalism.

Don't get your scientific opinions from newspapers, in may cases they are totally incapable of reporting science in a way which is even factually correct.

Read scientific papers if you want to form an opinion based on facts, Ben Goldacres Bad Science website is very good in terms of providing links to good sources of info, be aware that he is a bit of a lefty so again, there isn't a totally balanced viewpoint, but at least he backs up any opinions with actual evidence.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:08, Reply)

Oh, well
As I said, that's what I found in English. If you want, I can post the scientific version I read in Spanish yesterday. Will that make you happy?

I still think they only play with our fears, same as they do with the terrorism, to make us think and act. And I don't like it.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:13, Reply)

Calm down dear
The changes in world climate are probably caused by a combination of human activity with natural cycles and freak events. It is not certain which ingredient is having the greater effect.

There is no guarentee that if the whole of mankind reduced its input to zero (we all fucked of on holiday to Mars for 50 years) that this would be enough to stop the planet changing too much. But we don't know also, that by reducing the human input quite a bit, this may be enough to stop the planet changing too much.

Simply put we do not know what is absolutley correct, but doing something may help.

I am absolutley certain about this, and will never change my mind.

On the other hand.....
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:02, Reply)

But I agree with you
I only think the way it's sold to us is rubbish. I can't go through the "Stop wasting, save the planet" thing. I'll stop wasting because I think wasting is silly. But I'm clever enough to know that they have no way to prove that me not wasting will save the planet. On the same manner, they have no way to prove that me wasting will drive us to hell.

I think I do more than most people (recycle, reuse and don't have a car is quite a lot this days, I could go further) but nobody blackmails me!
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:06, Reply)

You have to realise
that most people can't be bothered, or simply don't understand, the science behind this massive global system. As such the only way to explain to these people is by simplification, sadly they then think the simplified version is true, rather than being a way to understand something more complicated.

The way this ought to be communicated is by balanced journalism, but it doesn't happen because the journalists are as stupid and as lazy as the people they are supposed to be educating and you end up with contradictory stories all over the place and so the man (or woman) on the street doesn't know what to believe and dismisses it all as "It's bollocks innit"
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:23, Reply)

So you agree with me
The way they sell it is rubbish.

Maybe, if the so clever scientits and politics started to think about us like people, intelligent people, and explain things to us properly, it would work better.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:25, Reply)

The problem is
that there aren't that many 'clever' people among newspaper readership. So if you presented the facts in a scientific manner, hardly anyone would understand it properly, and there would be complaints that scientists were using fancy language to hide the truth.

I'm a scientist myself, but climate science is not my field, and I'd struggle to understand all of the science behind global warming. It's a hellishly complex problem. One problem is that scientists can only work with the data they have, but they haven't got enough accurate temperature data over a long enough period to do proper extrapolation. Therefore the errors in the models are large (although becoming smaller) and so at either side of the mean there's going to be a big deviation.

Climate changer deniers will immediately latch onto a stray result which says the earth is going to cool by 2°C in the next 100 years, because in some circumstances a model will output such a result due to the errors in prediction.

Remember it's a statistical prediction. And statistics are bollocks if read incorrectly. Concorde was for many years the safest aircraft type in the sky. Then one day, one of them crashed. And immediately it became the most dangerous aircraft type.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:33, Reply)

And similarly, when the Telegraph reported
a "50% rise in the risk of heart conditions if you used ibuprofen," what they actually meant was that one year, 4 people in 100-or-so had suffered heart complications, and it was 6 people the following year. Twats.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:52, Reply)

You have it there
Try not to feel guilty. You do what you can, and will do more if you can.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:23, Reply)

We do what we must because we can
for the good of all of us except the ones who are dead.
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:10, Reply)

But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
(bill, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:36, Reply)

I blame the Victorians and their Industrial Revolution.
And according to the Guardian, ONLY Britain and the US are responsible and climate change causes cancer in Muslims and Africans. We're fascist racist Earth Haters by proxy.

Now excuse me, I have a yard full of old truck tyres to burn.
(The Boy Monders I have ginger bits in my beard., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:37, Reply)

You
may joke, but I was on the fence until the last year or so.

It's the media/government crap that's pushed me over the edge to err on the side of the GW deniers.

I mean, pushing up the cost of essential fuels is never going to have any other effect than taking money from each and every one of us and allowing those that took it to buy another duck house etc...

Those ads telling me to drive 5 miles a week less...well, if my factory was knocked down and rebuilt 1/2 mile closer to my house (1/2 * 2 * 5 days a week), then I could do this; of course, the waste and emmissions would probably offset the 5 miles per week less CO2 I'm pumping into the atmosphere, but hey!

It the actions that make me believe that man-made crap has nothing to do with it, i.e. if scientists were advising governments that CO2 really is a bad thing for the 'environment' then surely by now, less CO2 making alternatives would be easy to use.

Trains, buses etc....are nowhere to be seen in most of the country, and are more expensive (still!) than using your own private car, so instead of going for the option that might cost more yet produce less pollution, the option is to go for the easy target and make a load more money as people can't change their habits (driving to work), unless there are alternatives to getting there.

It's those sorts of things that made me start to think that there is nothing in it, apart from money for those proponents of GW.

PS. I notice they call it 'Climate Change' since the average global temp stabalised around 1992.
(dchurch bah, Thu 3 Dec 2009, 13:54, Reply)

Follow the money
You need to understand how research works and how it is funded to get an idea of where things have gone wrong.

Having worked in a research led university for almost 20 years, I can see where the CRU has failed.

99% of all research is dependant on someone paying for it to be done, and it is uncommon for the payee or sponsor to be unbiased (look at tobacco company sponsored research into smoking/cancer links in the 50's for a perfect example). Therefore it is normally in the interest of the researcher to obtain results that the sponsor will like. This ensures a steady flow of money to the researcher and his team.

Unfortunately for us all, the main sponsors of research into AGW are national governments, who are quite open about their blatent bias due to their eagerness to use AGW as a platform to raise a very large amount of money for their coffers in "green" tax.

This has given the CRU what they considered to be a green light to do whatever it takes to provide the figures their sponsor (HM Govt) desire.

As scientists, the CRU staff have let themselves and the entire research commuinity down rather badly and they should resign. I am suprised they are still hanging on.

As to whether AGW is a proven fact?, that is now totally up in the air again. The CRU have effectively discredited the existing evidence for it.

Now that the CRU evidence is discredited, the balance of proof swings in favour of the sceptics at this moment in time. It is no good screeching "the evidence is there" and "Its definately happening" without any actual evidence. As someone quite correctly pointed out above, do not believe what is in the newspapers or on the news. Do your own research.
( RadG Drinking Mojitos in the sun, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:40, Reply)

That's correct
I'm still all for reducing the waste, but don't like people lying to me.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:47, Reply)

As if our government listens to scientific advice...
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:50, Reply)

They listen
If that means collect money on taxes.
(Aberracion Life's getting very complicated, but a lot of fun., Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:08, Reply)

This is idiocy.
Tell us what your job in a research-led university has been. I'm guessing it wasn't academic.

Why would governments treat tax-raising as an end in itself? It's not as if HMRC officers get paid by commission. Remove that plank, and your whole batshit case collapses.

What the "leaks" show is that academics can be bitchy and backbiting. Woo hoo. That's actually a guarantor of good science: if you're looking for some way to show that other people are wrong, it forces them to tighten their arguments.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:39, Reply)

He also seems to be completely oblivious to the point
that most climate research in this country is funded by bodies like the Natural Environment Research Council, that is, scientific funding councils who don't have a huge hidden agenda and don't really stand to benefit either way from whatever results are gleaned from studies of anthropogenic climate change.

I smell a goat.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:47, Reply)

I'd been thinking something similar about Goats.
The lack of imagination among deniers - "They must be in it for the money" - is staggering. Besides: if the scientific community as a whole was smart enough to manage a hoax like this for money, they'd be smart enough to make a lot more money for a lot less work some other way...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:00, Reply)

Well, quite.
It does make them look rather desperate when they have to start yelling and pointing at the one-study-in-fifty that suggested the temperatures might drop, or indeed the mudslinging we've had over an illegally-obtained, personal email...I think in terms of tactics, it almost puts them on a par with homeopaths.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:08, Reply)

umm
The parent body of the N.E.R.C. is the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, a ministerial department of the Government.

Its legal status is that it is a government body.

Its funding is from the the government.

It is most certainly not an independant organisation.

Edit/ and I am most certainly NOT a denier, sceptic or such. I am simply rather dissapointed that some very poor practice by the CRU has muddied the waters greatly, handing the stage to the extremists of both sides of the debate to hang out their dirty washing in public, leaving the man on the street more confused than ever.
( RadG Drinking Mojitos in the sun, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:15, Reply)

does it matter?
If so, why? The earth might change but that's a problem for humans who are egocentric enough to believe they must stick around. It bugs me when people talk about saving the planet when what they mean is saving their asses from extinction.

(Insomnia makes you nihilistic.)
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:48, Reply)

^This
and if coastal areas are flooded and kill 20% of the world's population, is that a bad thing for humankind?

Apart from the individual suffering of course.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 8:54, Reply)

From an evolutionary point of view, No
Evidence sugests that any species put under pressure will change to suit a new environment. Unless it cannot adapt, in which case we are all doomed.

Perhaps we are part of the natural cycle, like all predators and prey. When sufficient humans are dead, their impact will reduce sufficiently for the planet to recover, thus allowing more humans and the cycle can continue.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:10, Reply)

Well, yes.
Humanity will be extinguished one day. That's nothing to worry about, and a matter of complete indifference. Nevertheless, the welfare of identifiable humans is not a matter of indifference.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:01, Reply)

to you, maybe.
And if it impacts on my own self-interest.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:31, Reply)

certainly not
overcrowding is a far worse problem than climate change.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:12, Reply)

No it isn't.
There's buckets of space for far more humans, and if we manage to convert to renewables and embrace GM, we could sustain many more humans.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:02, Reply)

it is on my street
can never get a fucking parking space right outside the house.

thinking on it, I didn't mean overcrowding, I meant having too many people for the amount of resources, and as you say, renewables and GM are available solutions for those.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:50, Reply)

Generally, it doesn't matter much
except for the fact the AGW is likely to cause further suffering to those who're already the worst off, so there's at the very least a humanitarian reason to worry.

Moreover, it matters that idiots get to shout down evidence, just because I'm old-fashioned enough to think that truth is worth having.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:52, Reply)

Of all the problems facing the world atm
It's not really global warming I'm worried about..
( whenanimalsattackhumans clad in global hypercolour, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:08, Reply)

Do tell us what is.
We need a change of subject.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 9:11, Reply)

i like breasts

cheers
( broadsword, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:06, Reply)

That's a very good point
What will anthropogenically-accelerated climate change do to our beloved boobs?
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:50, Reply)

Things expand as they get warmer,
so I'd expect a noticeable difference.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:17, Reply)

Phwooar

( broadsword, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:29, Reply)

YAY!
I'm getting good at this.
( SpikeyPickle wishes he was mabazaritchie, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:52, Reply)

There is a good primer on the matter here:
arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/five-things-you-should-know-about-climate-change.ars

It's a good read and while I haven't read the comments thread under it yet that should be good for a laugh at the inevitable arguements.
(bill, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 10:33, Reply)

Ijust wonder what difference the 'average' consumer could make.
Just today I was at a factory (no, I won't name them) which is part of a group that spends... wait for it... SIXTY ONE MILLION POUNDS A YEAR ON GAS!
That's a metric shitload of burning fossil fuels right there. Is there anything I can do in my fairly average life which would offset a minute fraction of their carbon footprint?
(Captain Placid 24/7 ball gags, brownie mix and clown porn, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 17:31, Reply)