You are correct that I have made a conclusion, but that conclusion is based on the science, which goes way beyond the particular set of station data that is being questioned. There are different terrestrial temperature datasets besides this one, some of which are publicly available. (If the denialists really wanted data, they could get it. What they really want is to claim they are being denied data.) There are computational climate models, there is satellite data, there is tree ring data, there is ice core data, there is sediment data, and probably other forms of data that I'm not remembering, but it all tells the same story. Warming has occurred recently that is unprecedented in rate of change compared to previous climate shifts. The vast majority of climate scientists are in agreement on this. There is not any evidence of bad science having been done here. You are misinterpreting a couple private emails, taken entirely out of context, where a scientist is using jargony scientific shorthand for a legitimate statistical technique which makes it sound to a layperson that they are cheating. They didn't. It wasn't scientific fraud. I would be happy to see real evidence against AGW be published and hashed out in the literature. We aren't talking about real evidence here. We are talking about a mob of "skeptics" who get their understanding of climate science from talk radio, and a handful of cranks who have some scientific training in unrelated or loosely related disciplines. Real scientists with good work that questions the consensus are not being suppressed. Real scientists don't have to break into private computers and steal email in order to make their point.
I will grant one thing; we really need a thorough and unbiased investigation of the CRU, although I suspect that after a big waste of time and money, the denialists will call it a whitewash and refuse to believe it.
This is not correct. These people's work could be removed entirely from the evidence for AGW, and it would still stand. This is only one part of the evidence. And there isn't any evidence of bad science, fraud, or error anyway.
That warming has occurred is only under debate on the (largely uninformed) fringes. I agree that the anthropogenic part of it is less certain, but only slightly so. No one has come up with a natural explanation for the warming that has been observed. Everything that has been touted by the denialist side has turned out to be wrong. I don't see how you can deny the physics of greenhouse gasses. That their concentration has risen dramatically over the past century is simply undeniable. Even if the rising concentration of CO2 wasn't causing warming, it is still acidifying the oceans and needs to be dealt with for that reason as well.
You call this a religious argument, but one side is based on science, and the other side is based on conspiracy theory, misinformation, and the support of the fossil fuel industry.
Then you are agreeing with the point I have been trying hardest to make. Take the original data, investigate it throughly and do so in a setting of complete transparency.
You seem to misunderstand that I do not dispute the data. What I do dispute is the verdict that AGW is established beyond ALL DOUBT. I've been arguing this for twenty years. I cannot tell you how many hundreds of papers I have read on both sides. You claim that ANY contradicting reports are solely the ruse of denialists, but many of the papers I've read came from people who had no ties to the oil industry, or any other businesses or even to one side of the camp or the other, but were just plain reports made which indicated contrary findings. To make such a claim as ALL CONTRADICTING DATA IS A RUSE, you simply reinforce my primary point that you are unwilling to believe anything but that AGW is the ONLY TRUTH.
What I have watched take place over the last twenty years is climate science getting derailed completely from an objective, NEUTRAL, science into two warring camps of TRUE BELIEVERS neither of which is willing to allow anyone to remain neutral. If I say I doubt Agw is proven, I get labeled as a denialist, if I say I am for green technology and cleaning up the environment, I get labeled a AGW freak.
The data speaks for itself. I have been looking at that data for twenty years, and it still comes down to "Global warming is happening. It may be due to human made pollution, it may be due to natural causes, it may be a planetary cycle. The precise cause is still open to debate." What that data tells ME, and has every single time I have had this debate for 20 years, is that further research needs to be done, better models need to be developed, and in the meantime, steps to control or reverse this trend need to be considered. I'm quite sorry, but I'm not willing to simply forgo 20 years worth of personal study of the various claims made to simply decide that I will only believe those that support a given position. Sediments, tree rings, ice cores, and other historical data simply do not align precisely enough to say "Carbon and Carbon alone is the culprit!" In several cases temperatures have risen without CO2, at others the rise in CO2 took place up to a century after a temperature increase. There are no 1 to 1 correlations, just evidence of factors. The data shows me quite well that CO2 does contribute, and reduction of carbon is a good idea. It also shows me that there are multiple factors involved, and that we need considerably more than forty years of temperature data, and a lot better understanding of the behavior of chaotic systems.
What that data DOES NOT tell me is "OMFG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF ONE MORE ATOM OF CARBON GETS RELEASED!!!!!!" Which is the general tone of every AGW true believer.
And that is what sets AGW as a religion, not a science. a Science would be saying, these are all the possible outcomes based on current knowledge. AGW is ONLY saying "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AND IT'S THE ONLY OUTCOME!!!!!" By denying ANY POSSIBILITY but that one, it's lost all basis in rational thought, and relies on emotional arguments, and deliberately excludes any data which does not agree with that position. You can feel YOU decided based on science, but too many others are merely lead by a belief popularized by High Prophet Gore, and the hundreds of other media stars and icons who have popularized the meme. These people wouldn't know a carbon atom from a frozen popsicle, but they don't need too, because they have their religious leaders to think for them.
Tell me, have you ever actually READ a contradictory report, or has the simple fact that it disagrees with AGW been enough to make you dismiss it without examination?
If you cannot be bothered to examine the data objectively, then you are not making a rational choice, but one based on faith. Your faith says the data has to be wrong, and nothing will make you change your mind.
I've read the emails. I am not relying on second and third hand sources and other's arguments nor am I even basing a damn thing on that use of "trick". I am going on what I personally read and interpreted from the emails. What I saw was a pattern of conversation which indicated that a group of people "in the know" were doing everything to prevent those "not in the know" from finding out that those "in the know" didn't actually have what they claimed to have, knew that they didn't have what they claimed to have, and knew if people found out it would cause enormous problems. The "trick" email was nothing. Worries about "I think they found the problem hidden in the Nature article" and "How could the London Times allow that to be published, I'm going to have to call my inside contact and have word with him!" and "We need to delete all emails about this." and "We can't allow this to be published even if we have to change the rules of peer review to make sure." and "Here's how to hide from FOI requests, don't worry, I have my government contact covering for us too" and "We have to get that editor removed, he's allowing dissenting reports to be published." were the damning evidence. Someone who is confident of their data has no reason to hide anything and EVERY REASON to allow it to stand on it's own merits.
I could care less who released the e-mails or why, but the emails showed secrecy and conspiracy to control scientific literature, news stories, and information given to governments. I don't give a damn what their motive was. I don't give a damn if they felt justified. Their actions have thrown their research into doubt.
And as such, the data must be re-examined. As this data is a PRIMARY SOURCE for governmental policy, especially rigorous examination is a must.
The denialists will make of it what they will. So will the true AGW beleivers. But for the sake of the actual SCIENCE, it has to be done. Science done based on pre-made conclusions is never science, and what these e-mails indicate is that all of this particular set of data was evaluated with pre-made conclusions. Anything which did not fit was tossed out. Even the code released seems to show that it was tailored to provide a pre-chosen result.
Which means that it IS suspect. The only way to remove that suspicion is to ensure utter transparency in it's re-examination, and ACCEPT the results of that re-examination.
Either the data can be confirmed under rigorous examination, or it can't. If it can, than it is validation of the original conclusions. If it DOES NOT, then it means ALL relevant science needs to be re-examined and subjected to that same rigorous, transparent evaluation.
And maybe finally climate science can stop being a popular religion and become a science again.
At no point in my post have I said that reduction of pollution should not occur. Nor have I denied the need to reduce carbon, or that it has bad effects. So please, stop reading into my points your personal versions of what I've said. Again, I will point out that my issue is with the behavior of the scientists in question, and with the way AGW is more of a religion than a true science. True Science evaluates EVERYTHING, not only that which supports it's pre-made conclusions. By sweeping this under the rug, instead of rigorously investigating, re-examining, and redoing the work in complete transparency to the public, AGW supporters simply seek to suppress a challenge to a religious belief, rather than serve the cause of science. If the data is correct, re-examination will prove it, and as such should be seen as the best of all possible evidence against the denialists. That it is being dismissed merely re-enforces the impression that this is a Faith, not a Fact. If they truly had nothing to hide, these scientists should be the loudest voices calling for secondary evaluation and confirmation of their work, because it's the best way to prove their innocence and the validity of their work.
