Which provably never actually changed, and has been debunked too. The guy who wrote it was frothing like I am at you due to some specific events that happened in the days running up to the timestamps on that sequence of mails due some stuff happening that really pissed him off.

Not fantastic, but scientists are people too. i would have been pissed too.

/sigh Precisely who is "the defense?"

Two main strategies, eh? No one taking a position not quite so sensational as 1. and 2. above, right?

After all, you're just shaking things up to see what falls out. No politics involved....

Ummm, dude what the frag does my comment have to do with plate tectonics? I'm just saying there is a good and reasonable chance in regards to climatology we know less than we think we know (too many X factors).

Apparently we need more drop bears!!

Hey-if we are all hot simmed we could duke out until everyone else gets DUMPSHOCK!!!!

And now for a a brief interlude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBtO1He5Gp8




And now back to our regularly scheduled OT dumpshock thread.

it wouldn't be DS if things didn't go wildly offtopic sometimes.

Because any argument you make about climate change applies to our understanding of the earth - we have no idea if the mantle is down there or what. The drilling in support of the models that indicate the existence of the mantle (from seismographic studies) have demonstrated that the seismographic studies have produced models that are incorrect - stuff is different from what we thought it was.

So why do you accept that the fact that earth has a liquid mantle and outer core and a solid inner core, and yet not that that anthropomorphic climate change exists? The scientific community firmly embraces both of them.

No it doesn't- some do, some don't
Yes it does-those that don't are crack pots.
No it doesn't-they are right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong and too politically interested in their pet theory to accept the fact that they might be wrong.

Really, come on. I said not one word about plate tectonics. Nor did I deny anthropomorphic climate change exists. I merely state what wise men and women know to be true: We don't know everything.

PS: You are trying to put words in my mouth.

You used the damned lies quote about something based on statistical models. That quote is about people propagating lies with manipulative and misleading statistics.

You applied that quote to the climate change stance.

So yes, I took your inference of "Climate change is propagating lies with manipulative and misleading statistics" to mean that you do not accept current evidence.

If you do accept current evidence please correct me.

Always will humanity find ways to argue itself into a hole. I love this species.

On the actual subject being discussed, keep in mind however, that while there is evidence to suggest that humans are contributing to global warming, we are still in the final days of an ice age (defined as the presence of polar ice caps) and all prior evidence suggests that these phenomena are cyclical in nature. So although, yes, humanity is exasperating the process, it would have happened eventually.

On the other hand, the hole in the ozone layer is thought to be the cause for much of the temperature increase, and there is no sufficient explanation for it beyond human pollution. Other than methane produced by farting cows. But we won't go into that.

And finally, I question the validity of those of us who are writing while living in established industrialised nations. Two major polluters (I'm not going to make any easily quantifiable comments TYVM) are China and India, nations that are undergoing a more modernised variant of the Industrial Revolution (Evidenced by poor working conditions, expanding heavy industry and a large child labour force. For more points of comparison go here).

/soapbox

1980 called, it wants it's arguments back

I have full rights and privileges to them but the 80's won't leave me alone!

Does anyone know a good lawyer?

Weaver, are you the same weaver on fark.com? I would guess so based on your stance on the various topics on climate over there and your discussion over here, but figured I'd ask.

Which particular people are acting as the defense that you are you talking about?

My opinion, from a person who is a graduate student in the Atmospheric Sciences, is that the emails will damage those involved in them. Specifically the discussion of deleting information requested by FOIA. If action was taken, then it strikes me as extremely unethical. As for the science as a whole, there are enough data sets independent from CRU that the discussion of the code posted isn't anything sinister. Unless of course people want to argue that all the various data sets are doing something unethical. In that case, as you said, it seems to incorporate X-files levels of paranoia.

I don't intend the statement of research to be an argument from authority, and I'll even go so far as to say my research has pretty much nothing to do with Climate Change.

It's probably an inside accident. CRU has a tradition of having all the security habits you'd expect of an ivory tower research institute run by researchers without adult supervision. Given the absence of any non-pertinent email it looks like the response to a FOIA request. It's quite likely that this was complied and placed on a publicity available share by someone internal to CRU who didn't realize that the share was public. It's happened before, like a month or three ago when McIntyre found a file of raw data that CRU had refused to release on an open FTP server.