We've had 10ish reviews of the "CLIMATEGATE" controversy, of which 6-7 I would consider totally independent of the parties involved. None of these found wrong doing.

The unc scandal has had 3-4 reviews ??? All of which where directly commissioned by the university. They aren't even comparable.

But again, if you are basing your opinion of climate science solely off what has been produced by east anglia/psu/[placeholder for other bogeymen] then you have thousands of pages of reading to do.

It's such a dead horse that even republican politicians, still dumbly shrugging their shoulders and denying human involvement in climate change, don't even reference "CLIMATEGATE!!! " anymore. They know they will be eaten alive by any REASONABLE nedia outlet if they do (by referencing the many reviews).




[Edited on May 18, 2014 at 10:40 PM. Reason : BENGHAZI!!!!!!]

5/18/2014 10:25:27 PM

Any review that takes
"Hey, man, can you delete those emails and datasets so we don't have to turn them over to FOIA requests"
"Sure, I'll do it. Oh, and I'll tell Frank, too"

and says "oh, everything is A-OK" is immediately suspect. it's kind of like when a policeman shoots someone in the back who is running away and gets off without even so much as a reprimand; you just know it's bullshit. That literally NO ONE in the climate science community has demanded exclusion or ostracism for Mann, Jones, and their cronies over that tells you all you need to know: the community is corrupt to the core and those that aren't are too scared or too powerless to speak up.

5/19/2014 12:24:15 AM

It Takes a Conspiracy of Thousands to Hold Aaronburro Back

5/19/2014 12:38:08 AM

^^That is literally the only scandalous thing to come from those hacked emails. And the initial review I read condemned them for that. I don't know why any subsequent review wouldn't. That you make the leap from that to "the community is corrupt to the core" is why you're the most ridiculed user here. And why would anyone be scared to speak up when they can just start their own blog and preach bullshit with no repercussions, like your favorite cranks?

5/19/2014 1:26:57 AM

Yep, and add in the context that they had several confidentiality agreements with their data sources and emails were deleted shortly after they started receiving endless death threats from burro's enlightened friends.

For 6 years you've been clinging to this incredibly tiny, manufactured piece of flotsam in the ocean of climate science. Aren't you tired? Just give up and let yourself drown already.

5/19/2014 6:21:35 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/05/20/pat-sajak-global-warming-alarmists-are-unpatriotic-racists/

5/20/2014 5:28:52 PM

*troll alert*

5/20/2014 6:07:17 PM

He does demonstrate there is a communication issue. There's too much confusion in the public with global warming/climate change actually is.

It's easy to see why sjaak says what he says,when the main things you hear about climate change are melting ice caps, and flooding, and droughts due to warming, but then also attribute record cold temperature to the same phenomenon.

Scientists need to work on communication. It's against the nature of science, but they need to figure out a catch phrase or something that explains it, and that people can relate to. Sajak isn't an idiot,he just doesn't get science.

5/20/2014 7:35:29 PM

Where does he get "racist" from?

5/20/2014 9:12:38 PM

Where does the unpatriotic come from?

5/20/2014 9:45:37 PM

Quote :

"Sajak isn't an idiot,he just doesn't get science."

Quote :

"Where does he get "racist" from?"

Quote :

"Where does the unpatriotic come from?"

He's a troll.

He's said as much himself.

Quote :

"@patsajak Sometimes it's fun to poke a stick in a hornets' nest just to hear the buzzing."

5/20/2014 11:53:37 PM

Quote :

"It's against the nature of science, but they need to figure out a catch phrase or something that explains it, and that people can relate to. "

Agreed. Maybe something catchy like "earthly heating"

5/21/2014 1:55:04 AM

or maybe... global... warming...?

5/21/2014 2:27:25 AM

Quote :

" And the initial review I read condemned them for that."

Source, plz. Because the Penn State review of Mann said he did nothing wrong, based on them asking him if he did anything wrong. There was little to no condemnation.

Quote :

" That you make the leap from that to "the community is corrupt to the core" is why you're the most ridiculed user here."

So, these guys are absolute scumbags, and are at the forefront of the community, and the community is completely silent on their scumbaggery... And you don't consider that "corrupt to the core"? Because I sure as hell do. If the community can't or won't kick them out, then what can it be trusted to do? I would think any scientific community that wanted to be taken seriously would kick out people like this, but I guess when it comes to the ideologically driven community of climate science, you can't expect such things to rule the day.

5/26/2014 12:35:07 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Sigh, just read this. But instead ignore it because it "comes from wikipedia." This shit happened 5 years ago, but I believe the first report I saw was the Independent Climate Change Email Review.

Quote :

"The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files"

5/26/2014 4:01:02 PM

http://www.wral.com/epa-seeks-to-cut-power-plant-carbon-by-30-percent/13692926/

Quote :

"comment from mikeyfan5600 Jun 2, 8:37 a.m. Can't wait to hear the sheep cry when they get their $1,000 monthly electric bill. The technology to do what this man is saying doesn't exist and yet we will see the sheep on here backing this man. There is no global warming. 31,000 scientist who aren't getting a penny from this farce back that statement. In fact the earth is cooling off the last 3 years. I froze my rear off this winter because of global warming. and one last note. The polar caps in the south and north are actually growing not shrinking. Can't wait to see the Libs on this board try to justify this It should make for a comical day."

And has anybody seen that liberal global warming alarmist show that comes on Fox on Sunday evening disguised as "science"?

6/2/2014 11:14:52 AM

Hopefully this will never go through. I shudder to think of the negative impact.

Quote :

"These rules threaten to suppress average annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion and lead to an average of 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030, relative to baseline economic forecasts"

-US Chamber of Commerce.

6/2/2014 12:55:36 PM

and they aren't biased at all

6/2/2014 12:57:42 PM

But wouldn't it create other jobs?

6/2/2014 12:57:54 PM

Quote :

"But wouldn't it create other jobs?"

Macroeconomics also don't exit to Republicans. Seriously, insert that assumption and they make a lot more sense. If everyone just worked more and spent less, then we would all just have higher bank account balances. Bootstraps.

6/2/2014 2:18:45 PM

I wonder how the Chamber came up with those numbers considering no states have come up with actual plans to cut emissions.

If its back of the envelope, you'd think they would have been able to come up with a much scarier number than $51 billion.

6/2/2014 2:59:46 PM

I'm not sure either, since Obama's plan just came out. Wouldn't it take a little while to crunch their own numbers?

6/2/2014 3:56:01 PM

It's not government's job to protect a business model, they need to do what's right and what's best.

At some point, politicians have to stop playing the Job-card.

6/2/2014 4:05:58 PM

^agree, but the EPA is required to consider costs when proposing new rules, and for whatever reason, I always find that accounting interesting.

Just skimmed the EPA proposal and they estimated compliance costs to be between $4 and $9 billion per year, but that was just the cost for the power industry to comply so these aren't really comparable.

But like I said, even if we give the Chamber the benefit of the doubt, $51 billion is really not that scary IMO, not in a $15 trillion economy. The government has been spending slightly more than $51 billion per year on disaster relief the last few years. Hell, the government will probably spend $51 billion on lawyers to get this pushed through the courts.

The benefits are gonna outweigh the costs by a long shot here IMO.

6/2/2014 5:12:11 PM

Quote :

"He does demonstrate there is a communication issue. There's too much confusion in the public with global warming/climate change actually is. It's easy to see why sjaak says what he says,when the main things you hear about climate change are melting ice caps, and flooding, and droughts due to warming, but then also attribute record cold temperature to the same phenomenon. Scientists need to work on communication. It's against the nature of science, but they need to figure out a catch phrase or something that explains it, and that people can relate to. Sajak isn't an idiot,he just doesn't get science."

I think we need to stop worrying about confusing people and just state the facts. Climate Change, while factually accurate, was a term that caught on as a response to all the idiots using anecdotal evidence about local weather conditions. The problem is that it suggests the overall trend is something other than warming, which is not true, and could definitely confuse people.

The earth is getting hotter, that is the indisputable fact based on decades of scientific observation, and the primary cause is human C02 emissions. The basic science of an increased concentration of C02 in the atmosphere leading to a heightened greenhouse effect is uncontroversial and easily understood. Start your messaging from there, get everyone to agree on those baseline ideas, then explain what the effects of it are, including Climate Change.

6/11/2014 1:10:08 PM

Quote :

"The earth is getting hotter, that is the indisputable fact based on decades of scientific observation, and the primary cause is human C02 emissions. The basic science of an increased concentration of C02 in the atmosphere leading to a heightened greenhouse effect is uncontroversial and easily understood. Start your messaging from there, get everyone to agree on those baseline ideas, then explain what the effects of it are, including Climate Change."

LOfuckingL

6/11/2014 5:14:28 PM

cool retort

6/11/2014 6:39:45 PM

I don't see how anyone can believe we are not affecting the climate at this point. Pretty mind boggling.

I guess it does fit with studies that once people wrap their personal identity around something, reason, facts, and evidence don't work.

6/11/2014 6:45:39 PM

Quote :

"The benefits are gonna outweigh the costs by a long shot here IMO."

Well, the benefits of these draconian EPA regulations will reduce the planet's temperature by 0.02°C by the year 2100. So I'd say no. And the EPA's goal of getting CO2 emissions to 30% of 2005 levels is a bit misleading, since that's already happening with the bursting natural gas industry.

As to everything getting hotter and hotter, the US government's own NOAA agency shows that over the past 14 years we've had a slight decline (from the historical average), at least for the US. And those measurements have been taken by the most advanced surface temperature station network in the world, USCRN.

http://tinyurl.com/o997ezy

[Edited on June 12, 2014 at 12:55 PM. Reason : k]

6/12/2014 12:45:36 PM

lol, did you just post a national temp chart in a thread about global climate change?

[Edited on June 12, 2014 at 12:51 PM. Reason : haha, and its mostly above normal in that chart]

6/12/2014 12:50:11 PM

If we don't do it, then China and other industrilizing countries never will either

6/12/2014 12:50:38 PM

In 10 years, we have cut emissions by ~15% with very little effort. The EPA is giving us another 15 years to cut the next 15%, and you're still going to call them draconian?

The only ambitious thing about these rules is that they were actually proposed lol.

6/12/2014 2:05:59 PM

Quote :

"As to everything getting hotter and hotter, the US government's own NOAA agency shows that over the past 14 years we've had a slight decline (from the historical average), at least for the US. And those measurements have been taken by the most advanced surface temperature station network in the world, USCRN."

Please stop spewing/repeating this nonsense and learn how step functions work...

6/12/2014 5:03:31 PM

Quote :

"As to everything getting hotter and hotter, the US government's own NOAA agency shows that over the past 14 years we've had a slight decline (from the historical average), at least for the US. And those measurements have been taken by the most advanced surface temperature station network in the world, USCRN."

and that's AFTER they jerry-rig the numbers to be worse than they actually are.

6/13/2014 12:08:58 AM

So when should climatologists expect that big payout from the "green" industry?

6/13/2014 2:10:13 AM

Quote :

"If we don't do it, then China and other industrilizing countries never will either"

The BRIC countries never will regardless of what we do, because they think global warming is a myth concocted by Europe and the US aimed at stagnating the developing countries.

6/13/2014 9:59:30 AM

That could change in the future. Especially if we start taking significant measures.

6/13/2014 10:10:22 AM

Quote :

"lol, did you just post a national temp chart in a thread about global climate change? [Edited on June 12, 2014 at 12:51 PM. Reason : haha, and its mostly above normal in that chart]"

I clearly pointed out that, yes, it only applied to the US. However the point was that USCRN is the most accurate surface temperature measurement system currently active. I wasn't trying to refute GLOBAL warming with one fell swoop.

Quote :

"and that's AFTER they jerry-rig the numbers to be worse than they actually are."

aaronburro, USCRN's figures are raw and unmolested. No "adjustments".

HR, I know exactly what I posted, thanks

Quote :

"That could change in the future. Especially if we start taking significant measures."

Possibly. Or it could go the opposite direction, since its hard to convince a country of AGW when temps have been stagnant for over a decade.

[Edited on June 13, 2014 at 11:19 AM. Reason : k]

6/13/2014 11:18:35 AM

Quote :

"I wasn't trying to refute GLOBAL warming with one fell swoop."

Well that's good, because facts are irrefutable.

6/13/2014 12:01:58 PM

Quote :

"I guess it does fit with studies that once people wrap their personal identity around something, reason, facts, and evidence don't work."

6/13/2014 12:09:01 PM

Quote :

"However the point was that USCRN is the most accurate surface temperature measurement system currently active. I wasn't trying to refute GLOBAL warming with one fell swoop."

but your link shows mostly above average temperatures, so I'm confused why you posted it. did you mean to post something else?

6/13/2014 12:40:52 PM

he graph shows a flatlining of temperatures over the last ten years. during that same period CO2 emissions continued to skyrocket.

6/13/2014 2:01:36 PM

10 plus years of data doesn't count for these people.

6/13/2014 2:34:57 PM

That's because the earth is >6000 years old.

[Edited on June 13, 2014 at 2:43 PM. Reason : :]

6/13/2014 2:42:38 PM

even if that trend was longer, global climate change can make some places cooler because weather and climate are different

6/13/2014 3:34:48 PM

Quote :

"10 plus years of data doesn't count for these people."

do you purposely try to make people wonder if you're being serious or not? i assume you do. and i can't tell if you're being serious here.

6/13/2014 3:45:24 PM

6/13/2014 3:46:35 PM

o look that XKCD guy turned into a LIEberal hippy who's drunk the Commie Kool-Aid

#ConservativeTruth

6/15/2014 4:33:21 AM

This is good news.

A huge majority of Americans support regulating carbon from power plants. And they’re even willing to pay for it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/02/a-huge-majority-of-americans-support-regulating-carbon-from-power-plants-and-theyre-even-willing-to-pay-for-it/

Quote :

"Democrats and Republicans are in rare agreement on the issue. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans, 76 percent among independents and 79 percent of Democrats support state-level limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Strong tea party supporters are most resistant to limits on emissions by states and power plants; 50 percent say the federal government should impose caps, while 45 percent say they should not."

Even better considering Republicans are threatening another shutdown fight over the new EPA rules. Good luck with that.

6/16/2014 2:16:15 PM

Especially since the Supreme Court just recently ruled that the EPA could regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

6/16/2014 3:44:19 PM