haplo, before you start going on about how the emails proove anything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Some scientist you are. Car exhaust produces Co1. Carbon monoxide. You have breathed Carbon dioxide in with every breath since birth and it hasn't killed you yet.

Well said.

He wasn't forced to resign he stepped down pending an investigation to clear him and his group of any wrong doing. This is proper behavior in such a situation, not an indication of guilt.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2009...ked-emails.htm
http://www.desmogblog.com/cru-direct...-hacked-emails.

Now I assume you are referring to the medieval warm period (I could not find any reference to a "middle warm period"). Problem with that period is if it did happen it was very localized and does not represent the global average. There is very limited data on that to begin with, as it does not show up in the ice core samples.

http://novascience.wordpress.com/cat...l-warm-period/

Here is an explanation of the tree ring stuff
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoub...ing_proxie.php

General Article on the topic
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What...s-tell-us.html


Point to some actual evidence data was destroyed please.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/green/?p=8961

Anyhow I find it interesting that out of 14 years of emails, only this small handful of threads was found that even hint at all at any wrong doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Legates
http://www.desmogblog.com/david-legates
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?legates

Hmm gee another geography professor. Not a scientist either I am afraid. And he looks to be biased given he is being funded by Exxon.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...et.php?id=1133
http://en.scientificcommons.org/james_j_o%27brien

The good news is this one seems to actually have a degree in the right area. I will have to look into his work more before I comment further, but he is a member of a group known for its receiving funding from good ol Exxon which instantly makes me suspicious of his work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Idso
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/per...heet.php?id=15
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit..._Global_Change

Wow yet another Geography professor.. this is almost becoming comical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
http://www.desmogblog.com/rm-bob-carter

Well at least his degree is in science, though geology is a bit off the beaten path when it comes to environmental sciences. Looks like he is also being funded by surprise surprise the fossil fuel industry.

They also seem to be comprised mostly of non scientists (only 2 had a a true science degree and 1 that actually was in the right area of science). Worst of all, every single one of them has connections with the oil industry and has been receiving funding from them.

He didn't need to as I did. Also I think your information on research funding is a bit faulty. Generally government grant money only covers a bit of the research costs, most of it is funded via universities or different foundations such as the Ford Foundation, most of which have no economic or political interests in the topic unlike the oil companies who have direct and very clear conflicts of interest.

I agree that there is plenty of muck on both sides thanks to the politicizing of the issue. This is why I choose to ignore the politics and look directly at the science itself and only the science.

Really? Do you have any proof of what you say? As for your what if statement, well it happens in science, and when a theory gets discredited, most of the scientists move on to the next area of research, and a few oldies who based their careers on it will hang around and try to push their theory back into the limelight. Also I would point out that the more genuine researchers who do not support global warming, also get their funding from the same sources as the groups that support the theory.

Also I very much doubt that the research money 'pro global warming' (I don't really believe this statement, if they are good scientists, they go where the data leads them) research teams receive is in the billions (and I mean actual temperature change research, not industrial research into green technology). It probably isn't beyond a few million a year excluding equipment costs. Its not like the scientists are laughing it up driving around in expensive cars living the high life. Your typical research scientist makes diddly unless they are researching something of direct economic interest, even then its the people who fund the research who profit from it.

I still think 'Climategate' is a fraud in of itself. A lot of smoke and mirrors and no solid evidence anywhere of any wrong doing. All the political and financial aspects of how science has been perverted as you put it, seems to be coming almost entirely from the anti warming spectrum. They have been pumping out piles of bogus and quickly refuted papers over the last while trying to muddy up the pool to the best they can, and drumming up support for their cause by appealing to certain political factions by claiming that the opposing faction is behind it all.

The scientists are not ignoring the problems of overpopulation. They know full well they can't do anything for that, as that is a political/ethical problem more then a scientific one. How exactly would science solve the problem? We have different forms of cheep birth control, and many ways of killing vast numbers of people. The numbers need to go down, but we are unwilling to do it. So how would science fix that problem?


Anyhow as others have done, I will also refer to Potholer54's videos on the subject. They are not spin but quite accurate; if you take the time to do the research on what he says, you will find out that everything he says can be independently verified (I did it myself) if you dig in the scientific journals and literature.

About the hacked emails video 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

About the hacked emails video 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

Wel done August , you provide a story that says some data was thrown out 30 years ago, before Jones took the job.
So that scuppers Haplos nonsense about Jones throwing out data because he didn't like it.
Then again once you see the "CAPS LOCK" come out like with..........its a pretty good indication that what is written is bollox.
I suppose that should have been obvious as in his first claim in the last post he did big letters and followed it straight away with something that was clearly false.

Not wanting to derail this thread but even the overpopulation myth is a huge source of debate in both political and scientific circles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...pulation-myth/

Fact: The entire current world population can fit into an area the size of Texas giving each person a 33' x 33' plot of land. Admittedly it would be one huge subdivision if you were to do that, but physically the world is far from over populated and we are nowhere near the levels where this sort of drastic subdivision would be necessary.

Largely the problem stems from the lack of agricultural technology and medical programmes being made available to 3rd world countries. I won't go into the debate about the reasons for this as that is the core of the debate, but I'd say both CH and NS are on shaky ground using this debate as an analogy.

Then what is your definition of overpopulated? When those tiny 33'x33' plots cover the entire land mass of the earth? Personally if you tried to stick me in such a small area i'd go buggy pretty quickly.

No, they are not.

Read Jared Diamond: "Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". The book is a real eye-opener. It should become mandatory reading for politicians, business leaders, and school classes. After reading it, it should be self-explaantory why a global population of several billions is nothing else but collective suicide in rates. the planet seem to be able to support such population levels only if you focus on unsufficiently short time periods.

There is much more to it then just "one meadow for every family".

Here is the source information
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
Anyhow they didn't destroy the raw data, they just don't have it on record themselves. Undoubtedly the sources used still have the raw data though. Plus this was done in the 1980's which as they said "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues." is why they don't have the raw data.


Not so much in scientific circles. Even that article admits such with lines like "Unlike almost all other American scholars of the subject, Steven Mosher, president of Population Research Institute and a China expert, does not consider population control to be a worthy goal."

I also have major issues with most of what is said in that article such as "The world's population growth rate maxed out in 1965 and has been in sharp decline."The unprecedented fall in fertility rates that began in postwar Europe has, in the decades since, spread to every corner of the globe, affecting China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America," says Mr. Mosher." That completely falls in the face of available data which says the exact opposite, that human growth is still growing at an exponential rate.

I am going to check those figures. <edit> Well the math is right anyways. But I am not sure what the point is. Do you honestly think it would be possible for us to continue to survive anywhere near levels like that. A person couldn't provide enough food and energy to live in a space that small, or anywhere near it, not to mention what about the rest of life on this planet, which we need to survive as well. As an apex species if we trash our environment, we will be among the first species to die off due to our reliance on everything else.

Problem is most of the world is poor for our forms of farming. Also very water intensive (another big problem). Then of course there are the energy demands we put on our environment, food needs including our insistence on eating a meat/fish rich diet, pollution and waste problems etc.

It is not a question if there is enough room for everyone, but can the ecosystem sustain us with out being destroyed in the process. I would say the answer is definatly no given all that is going on in the world.

Why so hard on professors in geography? Does that not include the study of earth sciences? Doesn't physiography fall under the term geography?

And finally, isn't climatology itself considered a field of physical geography?

A cartographer could be a Geography professor, he could even be involved in drawing maps about climate, it doesn't make him an expert in the field of climatology though.

Well these guys have arts degrees in geography (think one had a science degree though), I also did not see any record of them having degrees in climatology, oceanography, environmental geography, or other relevant degrees. But perhaps I am being too hasty in this case. I would have to look into their academic records more closely to be sure.

ok - do you REALLY want to get into this... Fine by me. Its called go read the emails...

The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM – McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

Hiding data - and stating he would VIOLATE the law and DELETE data rather than provide it... not hiding a thing is he Neon?

In 1212063122.txt, Jones urges another colleague, Michael Mann, to join in the deleting
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 </MANN@XXX.EDU></P.JONES@XXXX.UK>
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

The date here is important - as it is 24 days AFTER the first FoIA request, which the CRU acknowledged on May 6th.... This is the intentional deletion of data - data being destroyed - so that it may NOT be reviewed.

From: Phil Jones To: mann@xxx.edu
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes” </MHUGHES@XXX.EDU></RBRADLEY@XXX.EDU></P.JONES@XXXX.UK>
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignore Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Wouldn't be deleting other model results that don't give the desired result now would he Neon? Can't actually release the data out can we?

And when Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data

Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
But Jones figures a way out:
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote:
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones

How impartial a scientist is Phil Jones? How open to evidence that he may be wrong? Gather from this confession to John Christy:

…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil

No way the "science" - that he has overseen being modified - could be false huh....

As for the data being "lost" - as CRU claims - its funny that above Jones specifically states as an option the sending of the raw data - or "reconstructing" it .... He had it up until he had to show it to anyone - then it became "lost" - or as his own words show - DELETED....

Oh and as for "well there is a scientific concensus" - check the attempts to stop the publication of papers by sceptics such as Chris de Freitas and Roger Pielk. This is how the image of consensus was forged – in both senses of the word: From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, dated July 8, 2004:
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Note no comment about the science itself in the papers being demonstratably false - oh no. Instead - we will change the rules if need be to only the right people heard - and those people are the ones that agree with the doomsayers... And so someone like you Neon - going out to research the data yourself - still don't get to review all the data - because that which is unfavorable - is kept away from EVERYONE. You get to see only what those with a specific desire as to the outcome decide to make available.

You can spout all this mess you want - but to claim that no data was deleted - when the director of the CRU states as an option to release it - then it suddenly comes up "lost" - give me a break.

And your right - he did "resign" - but do you really think he had any choice? He was booted - the boot just had not hit his A$$ yet..

Don't take my word for it - you like to research - go to http://www.climate-gate.org/ and read every blasted one of them if you want.

Oh wow - some youtube fella had a linguistic answer for 2 emails...... I never had a problem with the "trick" word since I as an engineer understood it. But somehow that explanation makes the whole thing some blown out of proportion, right wing, anti climate change conspiracy... Gimme a break.

Neon - I know your smarter than that. No respectable scientist - or group of scientists - is going to act like the CRU has. Can you tell me honestly that - knowing that the vast majority of climate views and papers out there - are based off of the data provided - "reconstructed" by these same "scientists" at the CRU - should still be considered gospel when the data they are based on is admittedly modified and the original, raw data now "lost"? I know a few scientists in a number of fields - and not a one worth his or her salt would put such faith in research and papers that are based on such questionable foundational data..... An objective scientist wouldn't - because whether on the research side or the applied side - every scientist knows - garbage in = garbage out.

As for the issue of overpopulation - there are a number of things science could be doing about it. How about spending the efforts currently devoted to "OMG the SKY IS falling (figuratively) because of climate change" to things like how can we use the majority of landmass that is currently covered with water to our advantage. How can we find ways to lessen the population load on the planet long term through migration off planet. Yes it might take 25 or 50 years of research. Best to start now huh? Sure parts of this runs into applied science - but it goes back to the MONEY and POLTICS..... because some would rather spend the next 2 decades trying to say "see this or that will happen" instead of finding ways to fix the real problems that affect the earth.

Ok - as for the funding matter -OMG big oil...

Exxon Mobile has spent $23 Million over the last 10 years to research institutes concerned with climate research. That averages less than $2 Million a year.

The US government has spent in that same 10 year period an average of over 2 BILLION dollars a year - going to groups like the CRU....

Oh but BIG OIL!!!! How about BIG GOVERNMENT??? Lets look at JUST the recovery act of 2009

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ssets/spec.pdf

Gee - 2 Million to $170 Million in STIMULUS - and thats just ONE dip from the government.... Lets not forget that 2 million also goes to the "support and maintenance" - so really its 2 Million to substantially more than 170 Million.... In one shot. And you know full well that the this was stimulus - not what they already get in the budget. So calling it 2 Million to 840 Million is no stretch at all (adding the 170 and 660).

You tell me - who is funded better there????

Ok... you know - the climate doomsayers must be right. There is no wrongdoing in knowingly violating FoIA laws and intentionaling deleting data - or telling others to do it. There is nothing wrong with making sure no one with a differeing view doesn't get heard. There is nothing wrong with pointing at Big Oil as the evil demon spending Big Money when the government spends anywhere from 85 to 420 times more at the drop of a hat...

It is documentable facts like the above - that makes this whole subject like watching the wizard of oz.... people standing there going "don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain!".