FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

[GreyGeek]

A story on Slashdot was posted about another batch of Center for Climate Research (CCR) being released. The file is called FOIA_2011.

Below is the contents of the "Readme.txt" file, which contains interesting extracts from the 5,000 emails. Apparently the leaker has another 220,000 emails behind a password.

There can be NO DOUBT, after reading just this text, the AGW is ALL about politics, not about science. I see NO difference between the way the Catholic Church pushed the "science" of Ptolemy and the way the CCR are pushing AGW.
************************************************** ***
/// FOIA 2011 -- Background and Context ///





"Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day."

"Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes."

"One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true.

"Poverty is a death sentence."

"Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as...





/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]


<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.


<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.


<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]


<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's
included and what is left out.


<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
"Subsequent evidence" [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge - more evidence. What is it?


<1104> Wanner/NCCR:

In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I criticized [...] the Mann hockeystick [...]
My review was classified "unsignificant" even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.


<0414> Coe:

Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.



<2009> Briffa:

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!


<2775> Jones:

I too don't see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we're choosing the periods to show warming.


<1219> Trenberth:

[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
Japanese.


<0890> Jones:

We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
or I will write something - it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.


<0170> Jones:

Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does
say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.


<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital - hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.


<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue - on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)


<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement ["probably the
warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the
anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we'll have withdrawn
this statement - Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.





/// Communicating Climate Change ///

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made
to look foolish.


<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:

if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.


<4716> Adams:

Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.


<1790> Lorenzoni:

I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] 'climate change' needs to be present in people's
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon


<3062> Jones:

We don't really want the #&%$ and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[...] We'll have to cut out some of his stuff.


<1485> Mann:

the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what
the site [Real Climate] is about.


<2428> Ashton/co2.org:

Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions - bad politics - to
one about the value of a stable climate - much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible


<3332> Kelly:

the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[...] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable


<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy


<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
"global icons" [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local "reason" for the
destruction - cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
"unchanging" environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change


<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming

Pierrehumbert:

What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That's the sort of thing we need to think about.





/// The Medieval Warm Period ///

<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.


<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing


<5096> Cook:

A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
"Medieval Climate Anomaly" or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.





/// The Settled Science ///

<0310> Warren:

The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands
we'll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.


<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They'll kill us probably [...]


<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.


<5289> Hoskins:

If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.


<5315> Jenkins/MetO:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?


<2292> Jones:

[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven't increased at these levels.


<1788> Jones:

There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
extreme weather is due to global warming"] - at least not a climatologist.


<4693> Crowley:

I am not convinced that the "truth" is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships


<2967> Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?


<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts - guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.


<2095> Steig:

He's skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica -- he
thinks the "right" answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.


<0953> Jones:

This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won't be quite as necessary.


<4944> Haimberger:

It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.


<4262> Klein/LLNL:

Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
warming do this


<2461> Osborn:

This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however,
it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.


<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:

In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
cannot be explained in this way.





/// The Urban Heat Effect ///

<4938> Jenkins/MetO:

By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says "London's UHI
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer".


<0896> Jones:

I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can't
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.


<0044> Rean:

[...] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.


<4789> Wigley:

there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets --
we don't want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].

Jones:

The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at
all Californian sites.


<1601> Jones:

I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
20th century.


<2939> Jones:

[...] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where
the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.
[...] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land.
There is no urban effect there.





/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

<1583> Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.


<4165> Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.


<3994> Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no


<4241> Wilson:

I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.


<3373> Bradley:

I'm sure you agree--the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year
"reconstruction".


<4758> Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we're throwing out all post-1960 data 'cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
'cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!


<0886> Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don't you want to let the result into science?


<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.


<5055> Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.





/// Science and Religion ///

<2132> Wigley:

I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
skeptics have extreme religious views.


<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

[...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
must pray that they pick up that message.


<0999> Hulme:

My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God's planet into research and action.


<3653> Hulme:

He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.





/// Climate Models ///

<3111> Watson/UEA:

I'd agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the "big climate picture" includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.


<5131> Shukla/IGES:

["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.


<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:

While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.


<1982> Santer:

there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we've applied.


<0850> Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer


<5066> Hegerl:

[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.


<4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low
level clouds.


<4085> Jones:

GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.





/// The Cause ///

<3115> Mann:

By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.


<3940> Mann:

They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.


<0810> Mann:

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she think's she's
doing, but its not helping the cause


<3594> Berger:

Phil,
Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.


<0121> Jones:

[on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase


<4184> Jones:

[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it's been a mild winter in
the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish - expected though given the
La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!


<5294> Schneider:

Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are
forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy





/// Freedom of Information ///

<2440> Jones:

I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process


<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.


<2459> Osborn:

Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing
"David Holland". Everything we found was cc'd to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
you'll already have.


<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)


<1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.

************************************************** *****

[dibl]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

Fascinating -- thanks, GG!

I'll say it again ..... They grew grapes in England, and raised sheep and vegetables in Greenland, in the warming period around 1000 A.D. It is human arrogance that assumes man is influencing climate.

[bsniadajewski]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

I respectfully disagree, dibl. I'm sure that the Industrial Revolution affected the climate of the Northern Hemisphere somewhat at least.

[woodsmoke]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

Thanks GG.

Aside from the obvious wasting of time and money this whole debacle is going to set back "education" in science for a long time. The students generally think that they can't understand science and so, at least subconsciously, they think that they should "trust" those that are "smarter than them".

This is going to increase massively the power of the very people that the "oh so smarter than thous" detest the most.

It will increase the power of the fundamentalist.

What a DESPICABLE waste.

woodsmoke

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

I respectfully disagree, dibl. I'm sure that the Industrial Revolution affected the climate of the Northern Hemisphere somewhat at least.

Agreed.

I just read this article Arctic sea ice decline 'unprecedented' in last 1,400 years . The article states: "Whether the observed decline in Arctic sea ice of the past few decades is due to natural variability is difficult to determine, the scientists admit. However, they conclude it is consistent with human-caused global warming." And I, for one, agree.

I know--and I'm constantly telling people in real life [who are freaked out by the seeming increase in things like tsunamis and earthquakes]--that historically there have been wild variations in things like weather over the millennia. Just because we're WITNESSING so many events in a relatively short span of time doesn't mean there's anything unusual about them, or that they're unprecedented in Earth's history. We just weren't around before to see them for ourselves.

My point here is that I understand there's natural variation in temperatures over time, but I'm also realistic enough to know that humans ARE doing things that adversely affect the environment, including global warming.

[woodsmoke]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

Hi
Interesting thread.

As to the Arctic Sea ice melting this is one of the more dramatic photos, there are others going back into the fifties, of submarines where the AGW people say was ALWAYS frozen ice:

[img width=400 height=218]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/3-subs-north-pole-1987.jpg[/img]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/2...-not-so-thick/

I mean, I can remember Walter Cronkite.....YOUUUU arrrrreee therrrrr! Showing film from the trips in the fifties.

This is not taught in schools anymore but it USED to be taught that people were trying to find a "northwest passage"... through the ice...

Well, there were MANY times, starting with the Norwegian Vikings before the last little ice age, when people got through the supposedly impregnable ice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

As to the Arctic Sea ice reducing in size, yes, it is ( about 3 % per decade) ,

but at the same time the ANTarctic ice is increasing(about 1.8 % per decade).

But basically, when one goes up the other goes down......the water has to be SOMEwhere either as a liquid or as ice.

When one goes up the other goes down and vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs

wodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

I am old enough to remember the last big climate scare. Newsweek and the other "informed" periodicals said that scientists ALL agreed that the world was going to turn into a ball of ice because of man's influence. Add to the AGC the premature scare caused by the Club of Rome study, and the period of the 70's was filled with hysteria. The fears of a nuclear winter if the USSR & America exchanged blows didn't help.

But, what we have today with AGW is a classic case of Lysenkoism, which is:

Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.
...
Lysenko's political success was due in part to his striking differences from most biologists at the time. He was from a peasant family, and an enthusiastic advocate of the Soviet Union and Leninism. During a period which saw a series of man-made agricultural disasters, he was also extremely fast in responding to problems, although not with real solutions. Whenever the Party announced plans to plant a new crop or cultivate a new area, Lysenko had immediate practical suggestions on how to proceed.

So quickly did he develop his prescriptions - from the cold treatment of grain, to the plucking of leaves from cotton plants, to the cluster planting of trees, to unusual fertilizer mixes - that academic biologists did not have time to demonstrate that one technique was valueless or harmful before a new one was adopted. The Party-controlled newspapers applauded Lysenko's "practical" efforts and questioned the motives of his critics. Lysenko's "revolution in agriculture" had a powerful propaganda advantage over the academics, who urged the patience and observation required for science.

The extent and breadth of GW "studies" which are flowing out of schools and agencies devoted to AGW is staggering, especially since a lot of the data isn't published with the articles which have been peer reviewed by cronies holding to the same beliefs.

The twisting of the science of genetics to conform to the political view of the Communist Party in the USSR set the biological science of that dogmatic regime back nearly 50 years. It seems to me that the Left is attempting to use GW "science" to scare the world into yet another grand scheme of dialectical materialism. But, they are a little late. The current administration has already thrown more than 3 Trillion Dollars into the wind, with no record of who received how much, probably the greatest single "redistribution of wealth" event the world has ever seen. If the purpose was to destroy our economy, and hence our country, the odds are that they will be successful. I am sure they will have a political and economic system on the sidelines, waiting to be enacted.

[woodsmoke]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

LOL
Concerning Lysenko.
The leftie progressives LOVE to badmouth the Catholic Church because ONE guy in it burned Gregor Mendel's books.(The "Church" formal, later apologized to Mendel and the other guy was sent packing BY the church).

And they DO THIS IN THE BIOLOGY BOOKS....EVIL Catholic Church...

But.....the leftie authors seem to "not have space" to write about how Lysenko.

BURNED ALL OF WESTERN GENETICS in all of the Communist countries...

And, of course, that is because Lysenko ....was a wonderful good Communist.....we should all be Communists and destroy capitalism...

Lysenko BURNED ALL of WESTERN GENETICS......

But...Communism gooooooooooooooooooddd Capitalism baaaaddd

what hypocrisy from people who BLEAT that ...THEY....are not hypocritical...

woodsmoke

[Goeroeboeroe]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

I am a 'leftist' and I'm really started to get irritated by this ridiculing of everybody that's 'left' in your eyes.
I wrote about Lysenko years ago. I'm left, but I HATE Stalin (and Lenin) and everything they stand for. Probably more than you, because these monsters give people like you a way to write about everybody that's 'left' like they all are idiots like Lysenko or monsters like Stalin, Lenin, etc.
I think we should respect each other on this forum. Political right people are individuals, and so are left people.
I happen to believe in the climate change. I respect other people that do not believe in the climate change.
I don't say everybody that doesn't believe in climate change or is not 'left' is about the same as Pinochet.
If you have arguments against 'left' people, just give them. But pleas stop writing like everybody not being the right political direction in your opinion is some kind of object.

[woodsmoke]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

Hi Goeroeboeroe

I apologize since I have offended you but I would ask a question.

How many "righties" believe in global warming?

Ergo, that leaves either the middle or the left.

I will try to not use the term again.

woodsmoke

[bsniadajewski]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

I was getting a little irked myself, and I'm not a leftist or a rightist. A centrist I am, and a Catholic. The Catholic Church has accepted evolution as the way humans came to be, but that the soul comes from God. As I've said before, I, like you Goeboeroeboe (is that Netherlandic?), also accept the climate change. At least I not the only one here who thinks that.

[DoYouKubuntu]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

The Catholic Church has accepted evolution as the way humans came to be

Really? I was unaware of that.

[woodsmoke]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

LOL
Curiously, I'm considering changing from Lutheran, which will not in any way, shape, form or fashion, accept evolution to.....

Catholic which has, a few years ago, accepted evolution since I ....ummmm teach evolution! lol

woodsmoke

[Goeroeboeroe]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

Thanks, woodsmoke.
I'm not offended by using the terms 'right' or 'left'. I just don't like it when every leftist (or rightist) is blamed because the crazy or horrible things some left (or right) person did.
I am left, as I told. I might even say I'm very left. And I know there are a whole lot of complete idiots on the (far) left. But there are on the (far) right too. I don't think that has so much to do with left or right. I have political right friends. At the other hand I have sometimes to meet people with the same ideas I have, while I'm pretty sure I would become a political refugee when they get in power.

I don't know about the United States, but here in The Netherlands it's not a thing of right or left. Or at least: not completely. We have a right government at the moment. The government - as a government - doesn't believe there's a climate change, or if there is it has nothing to do with human behavior.
But in the same time a lot of (prominent) members of two of the three parties in government do believe in a climate change by human behavior. Among them the former leader of the biggest party in government, to name one of them. And a lot of former ministers.
On the far left there are people that don't believe in climate change (I'm still talking about The Netherlands). They only believe in industrial development so everybody can get rich and the whole climate change is some kind of capitalistic conspiracy. (About the same some people on the right think it's a conspiracy of left environment organizations etc.)

About the climate change. I really hope it's not happening, but I'm afraid it is. And I'm also afraid it's (mainly) caused by human behavior.
I'm not a climate scientist at all, so I have to try to figure out who to believe. Here in The Netherlands the emails that got published last time made a whole lot of fuzz. I don't remember exactly, but there was something like two third of Holland would be flooded, and that was wrong. There were some very serious investigations, and in the (very, very, very big) report of the IPCC there were found three or four mistakes in the data about The Netherlands (among thousands of no-mistakes). That investigations were very serious, even climate skeptics agreed with them. There was no conspiracy, there were just a few very stupid mistakes. Among them Holland being flooded for the biggest part.

Also international there were some investigations. They also found out there was no conspiracy, just some mistakes and procedures that should be better.

Since I'm no climate scientist, I have no reason not to believe the IPCC. But I really, really, really hope they are wrong. I would even be very, very glad if it turned out to be a conspiracy. Better a conspiracy then millions of people not having water etc.

In The Netherlands there's, among scientists, almost complete consensus about climate change caused mainly by human behavior. Only two well known scientists don't agree, but they are both no climate scientists. One of them is a economists and knows probably about as much of the climate as I do.
If (almost) every scientist says something is happening, I'm not so arrogant that I think I know it better.
Of course there can be some kind of conspiracy to get money for environmental organizations, or whatever reason. And I've read too about the internal mails of the IPCC. But the investigations showed it was more stupid behavior and mistakes than a conspiracy.
I used to work for an organization investigating a.o. racist violence. If you had heard some of our inside jokes we made, you probably would have thought we were heads of the KKK. Inside behavior is not always suitable to publish...

Now again there are mails leaked. Just days before the next climate conference. Because it's just days before that conference gives me the feeling the leaker has some kind of (hidden) agenda. Why just days before the conference, so there's no time to investigate it thoroughly?
In a Dutch paper there was an example of a leaked mail. It's in Dutch, but the mail is in English. The first English part is what the leaker published, the second part is the same text but now in it's context:
http://www.nrc.nl/klimaat/2011/11/24...t-ontwrichten/
At least this leaked mail is published completely out of context.

So I think there's a climate change. And I think it's caused (mainly) by human behavior. But does that make me an conspirator or an idiot? I don't think so. (There are plenty of other reasons why I'm sometimes an idiot ) I'm no climate scientist, so I have to decide who I believe. Just like most of the people on this forum that don't believe in a climate change. (How many climate scientists do you find on a linux forum?) I don't think people that don't believe in climate change, or at least not caused by human behavior, are stupid or wrong.
But I do think that, on both sides, there are people that have hidden agendas. And I think the people leaking - days before an international conference - belong to that kind of people.

[bsniadajewski]

Re: FOIA Whistleblower releases another batch!

My words exactly.