No there isn’t. Not even the most devote Climatologists believe this.

Maybe the kids on L. Ron Gore’s house boat.

Maybe the FOIA stuff has some meat to it, but from what little I’ve read the British version isn’t nearly as strict as the US version. Maybe they’ll find other incriminating emails. But this seems overhyped.

What really gets me are some of the side arguments, like the so-called “threats of violence” against critics. Because one guy made an off-hand comment that he’d like to punch a critic in the face. The shock, shock! that they had a “bunker mentality”. Well considering they got hacked I can’t blame them. You aren’t paranoid if they’re really out to get you.

Theories change in response to new scientific knowledge. This isn’t proof of fallibility so much as progress. Global Warming is now usually called Global Climate Change as the reality that not everything warms universally and some things are likely to cool. Is this a total refutation of the science? No. Is it moving the goalposts? Yes. Does that mean we have nothing to worry about? I doubt it, as even the CIA is studying the possible negative effects: http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3213

I think energy consumption from fossil fuels should be taxed in a way that leads consumers to move to other forms of energy. The taxes generated should go toward the creation of new nuclear, solar, geothermal, water, and wind facilities that will cost billions but help our country not fund states that are generally run like dungeons. Fossil fuels are too convenient because they’re cheap, but the dungeon states’ continued existence is reason enough for me to want to reduce our reliance on oil. If climate change is a bunch of cowpies, the leaders of the Peoples Republic of Dungeon (a worldwide franchise) aren’t.

Indeed, we do: people will, liberals won’t.

jon, do you have any idea how silly look, trying to defend that statement? Just examine the syntax of the statement “Mike’s Nature trick (description of “trick/method/process”) to hide the decline. You apparently are resolutely ignoring the second half of the clause describing the “trick;” that is, how the “trick” hides the decline.

Or in other words, how the protagonists in this case to explicit steps to cover up weak links in their reasoning and/or evidence, as opposed to the proper choice of refining their hypothesis in face of new data.

Add to this other goodies including discussions of how to exclude AGW “deniers,” and delegitimize publications that publish skeptical points of view, and you have a big stinking pile of dishonesty.

…After that you can explain how Greenland could support dairy farming 1,000 years ago, and how Patriot forces could drag heavy cannon across the Hudson river during the Revolutionary war. After that, you can explain how the seas froze so hard that Prussian hussars could capture Dutch warships off Texel.

Then, after that, you could explain why the last inter-glacial period has lasted at least a thousand years longer than normal.

Yes, we do know the answer to that one, a “trick” to “hide the decline.” Spin away, flat earther. Continue to insist that climate was static prior to the 20th century. Your fellow religious fundamentalists will applaud you, even if no thoughtful person does.

Well, Phil Jones won’t.

Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”. “That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”

Doesn’t exactly promise a rigorous pursuit of scientific fact.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf

Science is filled with inconvenient truths. As for my “Intelligent Design” comment, it’s not “hugely off-topic” when discussing science being misused to mention the fact that Intelligent Design is the least scientific nonsense since Eugenics based on the size of skulls was the flavor of its day. Is Global Climate Change a similar folly? If science gone dumb and dumb science are to be discussed, it’s good to have some parameters from which to discuss things, right?

It’s kind of hard to talk your way around that one. It’s still not proven that these emails are real–as in, yes, the hack was real, but were these emails hacked, or created and inserted into the hack?

jon, it’s time for you to stop making fun of the creationsists. You are one.

That’s why Intelligent Design was invented

To give threadjackers a convenient phrase to include in hugely off-topic comments to try to derail discussion of the actual content of the original post.

To be taken seriously you have to fully and HONESTLY (that word again) publish your results for the scrutiny of your peers (and often competitors). In many cases those same peers are tasked with reproducing your experiments (google room temperature superconductors for a good historical example). Nobody just takes your word for it. Nor should they.

And now we see why..

What these sci.. errr. gentl.. er… lying assholes did was the opposite of science. It was the opposite of the search for truth, the honest and rigorous scrutiny, the separation of knowledge from politics. It was politics and positioning done to likely keep their funds flowing to help support the attempts of a political class that desires more control over the lives of their lessers.

Will this deflect the religious and fervent beliefs of the global warming “prophets”? No way in hell. This will be spun to death. But it will polarize the 2 sides and critically damage the credibility of climate science for decades.

Nice going asshats..

One more thought (this ones for you jon. How’ve ya been doing). Getting off middle east oil and leaving a smaller footprint etc.. are desirable FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and NOT because some sci.. err… lying asshole says so. These are political and economic considerations.

The contribution that Co2 makes to global warming and mankinds role in that are scientific consideration. Scientifically speaking, one has nothing to do with the other. Unless the scientists are lying rat bastard asshats.

the FOIA is a felony.

And that’s a very good thing for REAL science.

Yes, as long as others can tell the difference. 52% anyone?

Anyway, it’s a great case for better scientific education. People need to learn that consensus is not evidence, as jon is on the way to demonstrating.

Global climate change isn’t about the weather, it’s about climate. Summers are still warmer than Winters because of factors plain to those who accept the science of heliocentrism. But climate is changing here and there. Australia’s drought isn’t over, trees in Montana are dying because beetle larvae aren’t freezing to death nearly as much as they used to, deserts are growing in Africa (though human causes are present as well as climactic ones,) the Himalayas aren’t getting as much snow, and the Arctic Ocean is becoming navigable by things other than submarines and enormous icebreakers. Changes are happening, and things like the last one require important changes in our trade (Seattle to Copenhagen trade and tourism?), defense (expand the Coast Guard and Navy?), and notice (why now?) There is still some question about whether rising CO2 will cause another ice age in Europe if the salinity and speed of the Gulf Stream changes. Scientists are often full of beans, but I’m glad they’re collecting those beans.

I’m still going to make the economic and ecological choices to reduce my reliance on foreign oil. It just makes sense to use less heat and cooling when I can do simple things like add or reduce the amount of clothing I wear. I have and will continue to reduce or eliminate my intake of big agricultural stuff with corn syrup and polyunsaturated fats, which makes sense regardless of the carbon footprint. I’m riding my bike more often. And I’m going to do what I can to continue that even if the climate is as predictable as a conservative’s call for tax cuts to reduce the deficit.

There is nothing wrong with living an efficient life. What is wrong is making it manadatory, and driving the cost of energy so high we are practically returning to the dark ages.

It should be investigated carefully and we should avoid the desire to act with revenge if their theories are proved to be bunk.

Where they lack understanding we must demonstrate such.

Where they lack tolerance, we must allow them their opinions.

However, we must not allow anyone to tie public policy to the conjecture of a small group of scientists again.