Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
The revolution continues worldwide!

Forum Post: Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank...

Posted 3 months ago on Feb. 21, 2012, 1:46 p.m. EST by jaxxen (-19)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Theft, deceit and outright lies:

How ugly can climate science get? Prominent climate scientist Peter H. Gleick relied on deceit and subterfuge to solicit a cache of sensitive internal documents from the conservative think tank The Heartland Institute before leaking them to the press -- a fresh scandal that further darkens the highly charged debate on planetary climate change. Gleick -- an internationally recognized hydroclimatologist and author of the respected annual report “The World’s Water” -- said he received an anonymous document in the mail that tipped him off to what he described as Heartland’s efforts to muddy public understanding of climate science and policy. He released the documents to expose their efforts “to cast doubt on climate science.” In his blog on the Huffington Post, Gleick publicly confessed to deceitful tactics that he described as a serious ethical slip. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts ... to attack climate science and scientists. - Peter H. Gleick “In a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name,” Gleick wrote. “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate … nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case.” Following his admission, Gleick's resignation was accepted by the National Center for Science Education. Gleick declined to provide any additional information when contacted by FoxNews.com. Heartland Institute president Joseph L. Bast blasted Gleick’s confession and actions, which he said put lives at risk and violated individual privacies. "Gleick's crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety,” Bast wrote in a statement posted Monday night to the group’s website. The documents consist of climate policy statements, fundraising documents, board meeting notifications and even tax filings -- as well as a memo titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.” That memo, apparently the anonymous document that inspired Gleick to take action, describes plans to create an anti-global warming science campaign for grade schools that will “dissuad[e] teachers from teaching science.” The Heartland Institute calls it a forgery -- and Bast says he believes Gleick may have written it. "Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source,” Bast said. “This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.” "We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days,” Bast wrote. Heartland said it is seeking legal counsel before pursuing any action and plans to declare its intentions on Tuesday. The subterfuge echoes the November 2009 “climate-gate” theft of thousands of emails from the climate science department of the University of East Anglia, a scandal that revealed scientists colluding to hide information and blacklisting each other from various journals. That theft gave climate science a bad name -- and Steve McIntyre, well-known author of the blog Climate Audit, said that this latest incident will continue to damage this field of science. “No one should feel any satisfaction in these events, which have been highly damaging to everyone touched by them, including both Heartland and Gleick,” he wrote. Marc Morano, publisher of the popular Climate Depot blog, told FoxNews.com that Gleick’s revelation of his activities could ruin his career. "Climate activists have been frustrated for years at their inability to convince the public and Washington to 'solve' global warming. So Gleick took it upon himself to reverse this trend," Morano said. "He instead did massive harm to the cause he holds so dear."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/#ixzz1n2l28IzM

His admission on Huffpost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html

99 Comments

99 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (2514) 3 months ago

I don't know about hauling "climate change deniers" off to jail, maybe the loony bin, but not jail :)

Seriously though, how is the poor behavior of a single scientist relevant? If you think virtually every single scientist on earth who has examined the data (and concluded that human activity is accelerating global warming) is colluding in a grand global conspiracy, then you should stop smoking crack. The worse part is global warming deniers can't even acknowledge that global oil supplies are dwindling, and coupled with increased demand, prices will continue to rise. They've been brainwashed into thinking ... if we could just restrain environmentalists, good times will be rolling again. The level of ignorance is astonishing.

[-] 1 points by arturo (1305) from Los Angeles, CA 3 months ago

Apparently, Lord Christopher Monckton had challenged Al Gore to a debate on climate change:

Lord Monckton challenged Al Gore to debate him on the science of global warming. Addressing Gore, Monckton said, “and if you don’t dare, I want you to remain silent about that subject forever from now on.”

Of course Gore won’t accept the challenge. Others have asked Gore to debate the science of global warming and he’s consistently refused to do so.

He has much to lose — financially and otherwise.

How is Gore trying to be a climate change profiteer? Essentially, he wants to make a fortune by creating a new market for a product that he is attempting to create by legislative fiat. If he succeeds and carbon emissions trading comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in. He’s made sure of that.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/11/01/lord-monckton-trashes-al-gores-global-warming-nonsense/

[-] 1 points by MoneyBad (20) 3 months ago

When someone on the side of Knowledge, Science and The People uses "deceit and subterfuge", he apologizes, resigns and braces for the public scorn.

When someone on the side of the Corporatocracy does the same and far worse . . . they're doing what they're supposed to do. Occasionally circumstances provoke a scandal (e.g., Rupert Murdoch and News of the World phone-hacking scandal) but not normally.

The Heartland Institute is caught not pursuing knowlege but deliberately muddying the waters of debate in order to reduce the spread and effect of knowledge (science) around an issue as vitally important as human-driven climate change. Should we expect a SCANDAL, then?

Of course not. It's not scandalous, it's expected. It's not that they're held to a weaker version of the high ethical standards proper to scientists and academics, but no ethical standards at all. Their very low ethical floor is set, not by ethics standards, but by fear of the Law and its punishments (so far as those are factors - not much).

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1489) 3 months ago

I see a posting offering a discussion of ethics in science and I see replies that are only about climate change.

So going with the 'herd', I will present empirical evidence that anyone can observe.

Glacial melt. Greenland has lost vast amounts of glacial ice, Google Earth can show anyone who cares to look. Certain subgenus of sharks are moving into new feeding grounds and breeding areas, even cross breeding with other subgenus of shark, something which has not be observed previously. Google again is available for searching out information.

Migration patterns which have been recorded for decades are changing due to climate changes along the routes.

If one does not wish to believe the science, one should at least believe their own eyes.

Over the last 50+ years records have been kept, and recent decades have demonstrated an increase in 'green house gases' being produced and climate change accelerating apace.

Climate is extremely important, food production, among other things are factored on climate being reasonably predictable and consistent.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 3 months ago

Human causes for Global warming are irrefutable.

We are fast approaching the point of no return, so if you let Fascist Capitalist confuse the issue it will be too late.

The World as we know it now will be almost uninhabitable for six billion people when the full effect of Global warming is upon us.

[-] 2 points by jaxxen (-19) 3 months ago

"Human causes for Global warming are irrefutable"

BULLSHIT!!

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 3 months ago

@ jaxxen: You Sir are a Fool and not worthy of any consideration.

[-] -1 points by shooz (7359) 3 months ago

Go ahead, refute them.

While your at it, please tell us about all the natural systems that man has messed with, that he didn't mess up.

We do have a penchant for messing them up you know.

[-] 1 points by B76RT (160) 3 months ago

You're algorable.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 months ago

@ B76RT: Please define "algorable".

[-] 1 points by B76RT (160) 2 months ago

you have bought into the algore climatechange /manmade global warming scam.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 months ago

@B76RT: Your a complete fool.

[-] -1 points by skylar (66) 2 months ago

oh chucky,.................you're the fool that's a tool of algore.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 months ago

@skylar: Your not worth talking too.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (7290) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 months ago

The theft and leaking of confidential documents exposed a campaign of misinformation to be unleashed on schools. Propaganda to support fossil fuel interests leaked to the public.

This does not hurt environmental science, this hurts the greedy/corrupt poisoners of our world, the rapers and poisoners of the public.

This scientist should get a humanitarian medal for being a whistle blower. For trying to protect us from the corrupt.

[-] 0 points by jaxxen (-19) 3 months ago

Sounds like you've already had your share of propaganda.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (7290) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 months ago

I've had more than enough propaganda thrown my way. Misinformation and manipulation are sick tools of the corrupt. We ( all ) who are here to regain our government and stop corruption, all have had enough propaganda thrown at us. That is one reason why we are here.

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

The conservative think tank's reprehensible plan to brainwash our children was exposed! The scientist is a hero. You should be ashamed to even to bring this up if you're a righty.

[-] 1 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

What about the hacked Mann e-mails? Global Warming lies exposed! YOU should be ashamed.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

There were no contradictions of Global Warming, no evidence of a wide spread conspiracy. If anything, the Mann e-mails provide the proof that climate scientists are serious researchers able to detect when the data has gaps or inconsistencies.

[-] 1 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

Nice spin, but epic fail. But don't worry, you still get a Participation Trophy for your basement shelf.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

Really, talk is as cheap as your posts. Please cite me the evidence of wide spread conspiracy. Or that their data doesn't support their conclusions.

[-] 1 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

No. You are not worth the effort. Your tiny mind is made up and it would be a waste of my time. Well, since I'm such a nice guy, here..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg But I doubt you will understand the meaning anyway.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

What you're really saying, translated from troll-speak, is You Got Nothing.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

Re-read, I added a link for ya.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

Certainly not evidence of conspiracy nor even a contradiction of Global Warming.

[-] 1 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

Never said it isn't happening, just that it's a natural cycle. Not even big news... We are not close to the highs of the last 4 peaks. We didn't cause it, and we can't stop it. And I'm happy we are on the high end and not on the low end.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

You must be some kind of super-scientist when I consider the thousands and thousands of climate scientists and even entire countries that have affirmed human attributed climate change. For myself and my friends, we have noticed the change in the seasons and the record breaking summers. Still, don't abandon your POV, especially if it results from years of formal scientific training and diligent observation.

[-] 1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 months ago

It doesn't help the case when the very Scientists who push the global warming theory are then found out to have fudged the data and admit it in there own emails to each other.

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2260) 2 months ago

It was an isolated case born more out of scientific ego than any need to deceive people about Global Warming.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

So you've been monitoring climate for the entire 20 something years of your life? WOW, that makes you an expert on par with Mann and his gang........ that get grant money because their "finds" match the Left wing/Enviro-wacko agenda! Congrats, sucka! BTW, I happen to be a scientist. And please, send me some stats on your "record breaking summers".

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

I didn't realize they made trolling a science.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

Be nice. Now where were we? Oh yes, you were about to send me some data....

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

2nd HOTTEST SUMMER EVER SO FAR…July 13, 2011 4:23 PM

The first half of summer here in North Texas has been highlighted with 100 degree heat and a lack of rain. When you look at the June 1 thru July 13th time frame, this is the 2nd hottest start to a summer on record. 1980 is the only summer that has been hotter than what we have experienced so far. The records go back 113 years, so this is the 2nd hottest start to summer in 113 years.

from CBS News

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

I never claimed I was monitoring climate for the entire 20 something years of my life. I only asserted that I'll take the word of thousands and thousands of climate scientists and even entire countries over some anonymous non-such who claims he's a scientist despite his rather tacky attitude and poor English skills.

[-] 2 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

I'm a scientist, not an English major! LOL So it was hotter in 1980 than last summer? And only for the start of the summer? Did you know that around 1980, THOUSANDS of climate scientists declared the "Beginning of the New Ice Age"? Yup, look it up. Don't fall for this crap. Do some homework outside of HuffPo and MoveOn.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (695) 2 months ago

so hey im an engineer wondering what science degree do you have

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

So why hide behind your alias? Point us all to your facebook page or whatever.

[-] 1 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

"So why hide behind your alias? Point us all to your facebook page or whatever." Yeah, right! BTW, we are out of room on this thread. Later or tomorrow I'll post something else that will piss you off and we can continue. Deal? Oh yeah, last summer here was one of the coolest in 10 years. Go figure.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (2248) 3 months ago

And you expect something different from a fox cited article ?
HERO is right !
So many of "us" are reluctant to stoop to their level -
but we are not doing it for ourselves, we are doing it for our country and our planet.
"PLEASE" does not work with a rabid dog

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

You won't understand this, but here it is anyway....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

[-] 1 points by bensdad (2248) 2 months ago

Pardon this reply from a guy with a BS in Physics - for undersdanding The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA)
I would suggest this article
http://www.warmdebate.com/epica-ice-core-data-temperatureco2-relationships
that ends with:
Scientists are doing their best to uncover the truth, but until then all we have is information, interpolation and speculation.
What we do see is an incredibly strong bond between global temperature levels and CO2 concentrations, one that appears almost inseparable.
There is no known historic example of a time when CO2 was known to lead temperature. This does not mean that CO2 does not influence temperature, in fact the ranges of temperature increases that we see in the terminations are simply too rapid and powerful to be explained by anything other than a feedback loop with CO2. The fact that CO2 levels were never higher than 300 ppmv during the past 650,000 years, and are now at an alarming 380 ppmv, should be of great concern.
It seems evident that increasing CO2 concentrations will result in increasing temperatures, but to what degree, and how soon, we simply don't know.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (695) 2 months ago

like everyone avoids this post because it is real

[-] -1 points by Kirby (107) 3 months ago

Flat temps the last 15 years are a fact.

[-] -1 points by jaxxen (-19) 3 months ago

Bullshit,he's a criminal. You Leftists have been brainwashing children for years with the hoax of MMGW and now that it's all unraveling and coming apart you all have to ratchet up the rhetoric and escalate the violence (OWS,for example). This is always the way when the Left starts losing control.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

What planet do you live on? Because it isn't Earth.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1517) from Charlotte, NC 3 months ago

You're the ones who are teaching children that its OK to hate gays, muslims, mexicans, and women who want to control their own bodies. You're the criminals in my eyes.

[-] 0 points by jaxxen (-19) 3 months ago

You obviously are blinded with bigotry and hatred,not very good idea to start lashing out when you're this emotional.

Who? Give examples of somebody who is "teaching children that its OK to hate gays, muslims, mexicans, and women who want to control their own bodies" This is a load of more bullshit. More Leftist propaganda and lies.

[-] 1 points by shooz (7359) 3 months ago

Michigan just passed a law that says it's OK to beat and bully children, as long as you have a religious, or philosophical reason to do so.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

That's just not right. Not you, the law.

[-] 1 points by shooz (7359) 3 months ago

It was the work of teabaggers.

The result of a school bully bill that was in legislation when they took over in '10'. They added that in before it passed. It allows bullying of gay kids, for religious reasons.

Ain't that another teabaggin' mess.

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

Do you have a link? This needs to be addressed by people of conscience. I'll start a petition if need be.

[-] 1 points by shooz (7359) 3 months ago

I don't know if there is a movement to change the law. It's getting late, but there should be something here.

http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=50071

For the doubters, here's some links to the story.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/michigan_republicans_give_anti-bullying_bill_a_mor.php

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/11/michigans_bullying_bill_gets_n.html

(R)epelican'ts of all stripes are making me angry.

This kind of crap never ends with these "people".

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2260) 3 months ago

Thanks, shooz.

[-] 1 points by Kirby (107) 3 months ago

That state has gone to hell.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

Really? Show us a link to the actual bill.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 3 months ago

And we can now throw away old shooz, too!

[-] 0 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 3 months ago

At this point in time, I have to agree with the German Government. Anyone in a position of authority or public influence who denies global climate change must sit in front of a boards of peers and explain and present evidence to validate the claim.

If they cannot validate their argument, off to jail.

The science is settled, all other arguments need not apply.

[-] 1 points by Kirby (107) 3 months ago

You a nazi?

[-] 1 points by Okay1 (20) 3 months ago

What has being a nazi have to do with his idiot post?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (695) 3 months ago

glad i live in the united states where free speech is still protected no matter how crazy

[-] 0 points by Quark (236) 3 months ago

Free speech is not protected completely. Only right wing speech is protected. The rest of the speech is drowned out by the BIG 6 media companies. Here is a list: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

[-] 1 points by Kirby (107) 3 months ago

You are serious? Surely you are a jester.

[-] 0 points by Quark (236) 3 months ago

I said completely. There are many ways truth gets drown out. We have more the illusion of free speech than free speech. Of course there are different levels of freedom and freedom is a relative term, a conceptual word with any concrete meaning, so we could argue all day. The fact is the BIG 6 is bad for free speech. That was my main point.

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (695) 3 months ago

your right free speech is protected by the thousands in the military every day which is not free

but really it is free i can start a newspaper or a news-station and their are those

we have countless blogs on youtube my school has an independent paper. the're harder to fine but the are there

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 3 months ago

Are you unaware of the Big 6? If any independent paper gets too big they will be labeled as terrorists or the such. No one will pay them any real attention. The Big 6 rule all in every way. There is so much misinformation because of blogs and you tube that no one knows what to believe. The Big 6 set the agenda for the day not your school paper. Wake up! Don't get me started on jar heads and the like. They defend nothing but their psychopathic souls.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (695) 3 months ago

wow kinda rude

i know who the big 6 i.

my point with my university independent school paper is that their always there you just have to look for them

the first amendment is still around so you are free to post and to say what ever you want to rebuttal this

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 3 months ago

You missed or overlooked my point. I understand yours easily and is the illusion I was referring to. Mine is more subtle and needs more contemplation than, "wow kinda rude." Freedom of Speech matters not if no one cares to listen or if other voices are much louder, sensationalized, or controlled by the Big 6. There is a Big Brain Wash going on by the Big 6 that makes everything else almost mute & moot.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (695) 3 months ago

you can also do something really powerful by turning off the tv as i can see you have, I know this too and yeah so what let people be people they can save themselves from this because you are still allowed to watch mostly what ever you want.

Really dont worry about other people and what they are watching if their stupid then there stupid o well you can save everyone

[-] 0 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 3 months ago

Free speech in the USA is only protected if you have money. The Supreme Court equates free speech to money. Also, in the US, you can say whatever you want, just like Germany. However, in both societies there is a price to pay for what you say.

In this specific case, the Germans are saying you cannot lie about scientific evidence specifically regarding Global Climate Change. If you have evidence to the contrary of what is accepted science, you must present it to a scientific committee, and a court if you and the committee disagree on what the results of the evidence conclude.

There are many examples of this occurring in the US, but the Climate Science is not one of those examples.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (695) 3 months ago

It was just a way to say. I can say the grass is blue even though all science points at it being green. That is what i meant and if you look through the bs of your comment money doesn't buy free speech it buys lobbying and that is a different issue. so dont beat me with your bs stick

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 3 months ago

Daniel, you can say the grass is blue, provided you are not costing someone else money by saying it.

Look what happened when Oprah Winfrey said she would not eat meat. You would think someone can say something like that. She was sued in Texas under food disparaging laws.

Granted, she won the case. But what would have happened if that was you? They would have destroyed you, the meat production companies. The reality is this happens all the times.

So your free speech exists only in your ability to protect it.

Go head try it. Attack a large company, and see how much power you have.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (695) 3 months ago

well see now your getting into something else you are going into defamation law. also you do have to take response for your actions like if i used words like rapist pig or hacker these have consequences and people must realize this. In the case of Oprah Winfrey they mention how Mad Cow Disease in a way that scared the local public from buy beef or at least thats what the ranchers did say, Also there is this whole big thing with food and what you can say about it. but the case was thrown out i believe? so all work it self out yay judiciary branch

remember that First Amendment applied only to direct government censorship but the state does preside over peer to peer conflicts

so please be responsible with your words

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (487) 3 months ago

Suppose the science is settled. How big is this problem? Where does it rank with things like fighting poverty, feeding the hungry, curing disease, and easing human suffering?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/movies/12cool.html

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 3 months ago

In the short run, it is top 10.

But as each year passes, all of what you wrote above, all or which are extremely important, become exacerbate by the effects of climate change.

The US military estimates that hundreds of millions are going to have to move. This is going to lead to wars over resources. Look what happened to Pakistan two summers ago. The 115 degree plus weather lead to prolonged melting of lower level glaciers. The flooding that resulted created lakes in farm land, some 30 feet deep, that never drained. They are still there. 50% of the wheat crop of lost.

This effect the futures market for commodities. Wonder why food increased in price over the last 12 months? This was a major reason.

So is it important the most important issue at the moment, no. But it will begin to change our environment over the next two generations.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (487) 3 months ago

Well we are getting ready to spend about $ 9 trillion on this problem without a lot of evidence that the expenditure will make much difference (IPCC estimates that if we implement all of the recommended changes (spend the $ 9 trillion) the temp rise over the next 100 years will only be delayed by six months). Would that money not be better spent elsewhere?

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 3 months ago

I cannot speak to the $9 Trillion. I have not read this number before, nor six months. I have never heard of these numbers issued in terms of science.

What I have been told, is that we are past the point of no return. Everything we do now is to delay the effects. I have heard from one scientist, who told me I am not to mention her name on this, that MIT's model indicate a 6 degree rise by 2100. If this occurs, there will only be half a billion to 1.5 billion people left in 2150. According to MIT, there is a 10% chance of 9 plus degree. If this happens, is will not be pretty.

I am convinced something big will happen. What is will be, how it will happen, the direct specifics, I do not have a comprehensive understanding.

One other thing I have notice, unscientific, so I could not say this as a professional in Germany: Almost all of the scientists I know personally who work on this stuff, do not have kids.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (487) 3 months ago

Not everyone at MIT agrees with the 9 deg estimate, and one scientist is worried about the safety of his family because of the results of his work on climate science.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/15/404673/mit-climate-scientist-wifecyberbullying-pushed-by-deniers/?mobile=nc

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 2 months ago

I understand that not everyone agrees. But this is not how science is accepted or rejected.

As an example, when a close friend of mine at Rutgers in NJ does her research, she takes the raw data and creates a prelim study. Her personal colleagues look it over, informally, and advise her on their view. .
Once a conscious among them is reached, it is sent to the department head. If he in consultation with the entire department agrees with the conclusion, it goes to a board of three. If the review board is 2-1 in favor of the conclusion it goes for submission to a journal.

My point, universal acceptance of each scientist is NOT necessary. Objections are considered, but some are just no correct. The scientists who have had objections, in the universal sense to Global Climate Change, do not have the "weight" of the scientific community behind them.

No one, NOT ONE, single piece of work in disagreement with the fact that human carbon injection into the atmosphere has changed the environment has been accepted by the community. The naysayers have published work in non-peer reviewed publications, which Global Climate Change deniers point at, but this is NOT science. It MUST be reviewed.

After East Anglia, three separate European Commissions, one government, one corporate, and a combination of the first two, meet to work this out this issues. All three commissions attempt to put this debate to bed. All three agreed the the overall science on Global Climate Change is sound.

And even more importantly for the private sector, the Insurance Industry and the financial industry, where I use to work, and have a number of family members who over since the last century who have held high positions, have NEVER doubted or challenged Global Climate Change. As a matter of fact, the financial industry is guaranteeing it.

This is why the oil companies can now get insurance for projects in the North Pole region. If someone is going to argue there is a conspiracy here, entire actual offices at the largest investment banks, insurance companies, and financial firms have committed multiply felonies, including violating of fiduciary responsibilities to their company, lying to the government, and lying to the military. When oil companies are going to set up operations in open waters, they have to inform the US military so they can be ready to defend "national interests" if those energy platforms come under attack by another government or pirates.

The overall weight of evidence is settled on Global Climate Change. Now it is just an issue of how bad it is going to be.

On the positive side, just recently in was announced that high level glaciers in The Himalayas are not melting as fast as original evidence had concluded. This is good. Hopefully, the earth will make natural adjustments and in the long term we are looking at only a four degree rise.

But I am not holding my breath.

The recent research at Duke and Rutgers in NJ indicates that carbon sequestration in plants in about 30% less than original studies indicated over the last two decades.

However, this could be changed through genetic alternation of trees. The problems the scientists I know on a personal level tell me is there could be "other" ramification, unforeseen, to alternating trees or any other organic life.

Whatever the case, our environment, the one that gave rise to our species over the last 75,000 plus years is changing rapidly.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (487) 2 months ago

How about 32,000 scientists. What weight do you give them?

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0026

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (4663) 2 months ago

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/5/Py2XVILHUjQ

No one has ever heard that claim before.

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 2 months ago

This is Arthur B. Robinson's Oregon Petition. This is a hoax and has been discredited. I know of Dr. Robinson.

I have taken every single argument on this page to the scientists I know, not in the last couple of days but on my own over the last few years playing devil's advocate. There answer is always the same, "show me the peer reviewed research."

Keep in mind, the vast majority of scientists do NOT care either way. As a friend of mine at Rutgers, who is a carbon specialist, told me, paraphrasing, " I would love to be the scientist who could disprove Global Climate Change is happening, I would get tenure immediately." Her point, there is NO credible science, none, not any, nothing, zero.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (487) 2 months ago

So all of the 32000 signatures are forged? I would dig a little deeper.

But lets assume that global warming is happening.

What do we do about it? To figure this out you have to answer the following questions:

  1. What is the probability that global warming is going to be catastrophic (Tens of thousands of human causalities)? We make decisions based on risk every day. Every time we get into a car for example. Why don’t we demand answers before we start making decisions. Catastrophic global warming in the next 100 years could be about as likely as a major asteroid hit. Last time I checked no one is proposing $9 Trillion expenditure on asteroid prevention.

  2. Could global warming actually be a good thing? (Nice weather, longer growing seasons, CO2 plant food, and many more people die each year from lack of heat than because of it)

  3. If it turns out to be a really bad thing what can be done about it? If we adopt all of the changes recommend by the IPCC they predict a delay in temp rise over the next 100 years by only a few months. So why spend trillions (actually $9 trillion is proposed) for only a small improvement? Wouldn’t that money be better spent elsewhere (poverty, hunger, clean water, prevent disease, etc.)

  4. This is America. We are the great problem solvers. Why not put the best minds to work on solving the problem instead of saying that we all have to go back to cowering in caves warming our hands over a CFL lamp? (BTW, some already have and for a lot less $ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084 )

[-] 1 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 2 months ago

First, Global Climate change is happening. The argument is over human involvement. It was a created issue because powerful interests realized they could be held financially liable, and they will be, if it could be shown, and it has, that the energy industries of the advanced countries are responsible and they are responsible. I have a higher standard of living because of the energy output in my country. People of the Maldives, where the President was just overthrown by big business supported military, are suffering. They want redress.

Second, Global Climate change is already catastrophic if you live in areas like Pakistan which have seen the effects, or the Maldives.

Third as for the 32,000, no not all are forged, though some did not know they signed it. However, once again, those who signed have been questioned and asked for their research. The single most famous case, Dr. Fred Singer. One of the most important physicists of the 20th Century has had his career ruined. He was brought before a committee of Physicists due to his Global Climate changes claims.

When Dr. Singer could not produce any evidence for his public statements, he was charged with unethical conduct. He has not published a peer review article in over 20 years on subject. He is persona non grata in the scientific community.

All the board wants is his research, reviewed, and he cannot deliver it. If he has the information, send it to Boyden Hall Rutgers University in New Jersey. They would love to see it, so would I. It would be a relief to realize we can continue to pump fossil fuels into the atmosphere and not worry about the ramifications. We could start drilling everywhere, we can expand the Tar Sands, exploit the oil and natural gas in Siberia, with no worry. We can drive gas prices down to .50 a gallon, employment could be expanded it would be great.

Dr. Singer has received these letters, but he does not provide the research. Corporations, Scientists, and the US Military reject his statements.

Fourth, Global Warming was a good thing. The Green Revolution would not have happened. There is more than evidnence now that the Global Cooling of the period from the 16th to 19th Centuries, the Little Ice Age, came to an end due to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. GW was great for our parents and grandparents, our kids and grand kids are going to deal with.

Sort of like the period of rapid growth in capitalism in the late 20th century, they had a great time, now we are paying for it.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (487) 2 months ago

Why did they change the name from global warming to global climate change? Is it also possible that the earth is cooling?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc-scientist-global-cooling-headed-our-way-for-the-next-30-years/

In light of the uncertainty are you ready to spend $ 9 trillion on solutions that will only delay the temp rise in 100 years by six months (according to the IPCC) ?

[-] 0 points by KochRocks (-70) 2 months ago

Will not even bother clicking on the link libtard, Global warming has been debunked a long time ago. You libtards need some new propaganda material hahahhahhaha

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (4663) 2 months ago

Of course you won't.

Because you know that you are a liar.

The rest of us know that too. :D

[-] 0 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 2 months ago

Koch, grow up. When you become an adult, you will find no one is going to respect you by throwing around names. So you want to have a conversation, try not to start it with something that if done face to face, would cost you a couple of teeth and a broken nose.

Finally, give me something better than the corporate capitalists media like Fox, PBS, NBC or the like. Especially Fox, The New York Times is bad enough, but Fox? Please.

[-] 1 points by KochRocks (-70) 2 months ago

couple of teeth and a broken nose////////////////////////////////////////////////brrrrr I am afraid now, do not be so bitter that OWS is hosed ok?????

[-] 0 points by tbuontempo (186) from Jersey City, NJ 2 months ago

Son, your lack of serious social skills has nothing to do with OWS, now get back to mama's skirt boy.

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 3 months ago

its not settled. the problem with climate science is that it has become political and its difficult to tell what is science versus what is social engineering and leftist politics. For you to say that if a scientist fails to validate his/her claim (of denying climate change) they should go to jail sounds like the spanish inquisition. Plus i double that the german government would do that anyway.

[-] -1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1007) from Nanty Glo, PA 3 months ago

So, Gleick claims that docs he originally said he'd received from an annonymous source, he later claims he got basically by stealing. Then Heartland Climate Strategy claims the docs are forgeries and lies.

So, objectively speaking, pick the liar? Pardon the language, but what a circle-jerk!