PDA

View Full Version : Al Gore on those East Anglia emails



Prazak
12-09-09, 09:51 AM
Interview with Al published in this morning's Slate:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it's sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven't read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus. But the noise machine built by the climate deniers often seizes on what they can blow out of proportion, so they've thought this is a bigger deal than it is.

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it's been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you're referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn't be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody's opinion that a particular study isn't any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific
process really is.

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R. dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it's completely unchanged. What we're seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly. The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our very eyes. It's been the size of the continental United States for the last 3 million years and now 40 percent is gone and the rest of it is going. The mountain glaciers are going. We've had record storms, droughts, fires, and floods. There is an air of unreality in debating these arcane points when the world is changing in such dramatic ways right in front of our eyes because of global warming.

Q: What's your view on the medieval warm period and the charge that the East Anglia e-mails suggest data was manipulated to "contain" that anomaly?

A: I haven't read those e-mails in detail, but the larger point is that there are cyclical changes in the climate and they are fairly well-understood, and all of them are included in the scientific consensus. When you look at what has happened over the last few decades the natural fluctuations point in the opposite direction of what has actually occurred. When they run the models and plug in the man-made pollution, the correspondence is exact. Beyond that, the scale of natural fluctuations has now been far exceeded by the impact of man-made global warming.

And again, we're putting 90 million tons of it into the air today and we'll put a little more of that up there tomorrow. The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat is as well-established as gravity, for God's sakes. It's not some mystery. One hundred and fifty years ago this year, John Tyndall discovered CO2 traps heat, and that was the same year the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania. The oil industry has outpaced the building of a public consensus of the implications of climate science.

But the basic facts are incontrovertible. What do they think happens when we put 90 million tons up there every day? Is there some magic wand they can wave on it and presto!—physics is overturned and carbon dioxide doesn't trap heat anymore? And when we see all these things happening on the Earth itself, what in the hell do they think is causing it? The scientists have long held that the evidence in their considered word is "unequivocal," which has been endorsed by every national academy of science in every major country in the entire world.

If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn't take place, I'm sure we'd have a robust debate about it right now.

BK
12-09-09, 09:56 AM
Reminds me of the movie the Wizard of Oz - when the Wizard announces 'Ignore the man behind the curtain'.

Boy, these Political elites think the Citizens of the USA are dumb .....perhaps their right....I hope not.

Jay
12-09-09, 12:25 PM
Man he's so good he almost has me convinced. :D

Prazak
12-09-09, 01:21 PM
Reminds me of the movie the Wizard of Oz - when the Wizard announces 'Ignore the man behind the curtain'.

Boy, these Political elites think the Citizens of the USA are dumb .....perhaps their right....I hope not.

I don't see where he says anything about the citizens of the USA being dumb. I see him saying that those who seize on 10-year-old emails between a couple of scientists are deliberately distorting the science, and I see him implying that those who deny the science are conspiracists.

WDCRob
12-09-09, 01:35 PM
If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn't take place, I'm sure we'd have a robust debate about it right now.

Sad, but obviously true.

sadsack
12-09-09, 01:38 PM
Too bad Al can't stop lying. Saw this via Drudge:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record



Climategate: Gore falsifies the record

Andrew Bolt

Wednesday, December 09, 2009 at 06:54pm




Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html) and dismissed them as mere piffle (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/al-gore-cant-tell-time-thinks-most-recent-climategate-email-is-more-than-10-years-old/):

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.
. . .

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago (http://www.free-the-memes.net/writings/warming3/ClimateGate2.html). The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_which_one_blew_the_whistle/). Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails (http://co2realist.com/2009/11/28/phil-jones-emails-taken-out-of-context/)is from last year.
How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?
(Thanks to readers Sinclair and Peter.)

UPDATE
Reader Barry:

Actually the e-mail archives are named by Unix timestamp, ranging from Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:07 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT. This is a strong indicator they are extracted from an enterprise archive, probably by the FOIA Compliance Officer and not hacked from individual’s workstations.


nice . . .

Prazak
12-09-09, 02:38 PM
Good find, Sadsack.

The email that has everyone up in arms is from 1999.

GRG55
12-09-09, 05:11 PM
I don't see where he says anything about the citizens of the USA being dumb. I see him saying that those who seize on 10-year-old emails between a couple of scientists are deliberately distorting the science, and I see him implying that those who deny the science are conspiracists.

What you see ain't what a growing number of others see...;)

Ghent12
12-09-09, 07:08 PM
If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn't take place, I'm sure we'd have a robust debate about it right now.
Such a curious argument, given that the side using closer to "unlimited money" is the one that allows him to afford mega-mansions and super-yachts. Indeed, the money used to "deny the holocau--err, science" is evidently an insignificant fraction of the money used on the science itself.

c1ue
12-09-09, 08:23 PM
But the basic facts are incontrovertible. What do they think happens when we put 90 million tons up there every day? Is there some magic wand they can wave on it and presto!—physics is overturned and carbon dioxide doesn't trap heat anymore? And when we see all these things happening on the Earth itself, what in the hell do they think is causing it? The scientists have long held that the evidence in their considered word is "unequivocal," which has been endorsed by every national academy of science in every major country in the entire world.

The basic facts unfortunately aren't what this famous but often factually wrong person states. Don't forget - this is the same one who thinks the temperature of the earth's crust is millions of degrees.

As I noted in the other thread - what Gore and his fellow AGW alarmists try to do is to expand the basic warming trend to cover the entire long chain of AGW-CO2-catastrophe theory.

The crux of the theory is actually NOT the greenhouse effect of CO2 as he says above.

It is that the CO2 is a magic multiplier (or 'forcing') - the Immaculate Molecules - which will cause everything else to warm.

This theory has never been experimentally found.

It has never been observed empirically either in the modern climate record or in the 600 million years of past climate.

It isn't even a real theory - it is an artifact of the computer models which basically is a black box used to represent much of what the modellers cannot conceive of. Thus even discounting that the models don't handle many well known climate effects such as the PDO or aerosols, the 'forcing' itself is right up there with phlogiston.

That the models themselves suffer from potentially fatal architectural issues is also something I've posted about.

One specific example is molecular level friction. As we all know, friction exists even within air. Temperature = heat, but heat in gases can (and does) also convert into motion. The models generally operate using kilometer or 100 kilometer minimum size grids of analysis; there is no way whatsoever for these models to handle molecular level interactions.

But molecular level interactions are important. It is impossible to model actual behavior without it. In order to do so, all sorts of interesting assumptions must be made - essentially 'training' the model to represent known behavior using much larger scale (vs. the molecular level) assumptions.

The problem with this approach is that the underlying training variables don't correspond to reality. Thus any situation not already proven via verification, cannot be simulated with any degree of certainty.

Or in other words - unless you already know what the outcome should be from such a model, you cannot rely on its non-verified predictive capabilities. If your scientist/modeller in question already has an idea on what the outcome should be irrespective of reality, the output is completely worthless given that the tweaking will always yield exactly what is desired. This is one reason why the IPCC keeps revising its 'projections' - every single one has been wrong literally from the day it was created. After revision using later data (also called cheating), the models are correct up to the present day but again their predictive powers are nonexistent.

This is exactly like betting on the outcome of coin tosses, but being able to 'revise' your model on up-to-the-second past data. You can model the past perfectly this way but still have zero predictive power for the future.

The tremendous economic changes being pushed are thus being based on a long chain of unproven assumptions and a series of inherently unreliable models.

Prazak
12-10-09, 10:36 AM
Thanks for the detailed response, c1ue. I'm wrestling with this issue. And for me it relates also to Peak Oil concerns, wanting to see disincentives to burning ever-scarcer carbon-based fuels and to see incentives to finding alternatives.

zilbo79
12-10-09, 10:00 PM
The ECO-fascists will lose because they assume that mankind has the ability to change the environment and they give garbage data via their global network of conspirator-scientists from NOAA, NASA, AMS, JMA, USGS, the US Navy, and a dozen or so others under their thumb. They've even manipulated the physics textbooks and fudged the radiative physics of CO2.

But true, truth-seeking skeptics like us have one indomitable strength: our metaphysical certitude about how wrong they are and how right we are. Our skepticism gives us absolute certainty about our position.






<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mF_anaVcCXg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

doom&gloom
12-11-09, 06:18 AM
I have a lot of respect for AlGore. The Goreacle has managed to fool many
of the people for much of the time, all the while making himslef quite wealthy
as well. He has operated as a complete and total hypocrite out in the open
yet managed to get the MSM to basically ignore his duplicitiousness in favor
of his ideology. In short, he is the 'perfect politician' -- a f**kin' lying sack of
shit who steal from the poor thru any means possible, all the while seeking
greater and greater power and control over them. Good for you AlGore.

Now I hope you choke on some greehouse gas leak into one of your private
jet planes someday.

c1ue
12-11-09, 11:15 AM
But true, truth-seeking skeptics like us have one indomitable strength: our metaphysical certitude about how wrong they are and how right we are. Our skepticism gives us absolute certainty about our position.


Some of us just don't automatically believe everything we're told.

santafe2
12-19-09, 01:57 AM
The ECO-fascists will lose because they assume that mankind has the ability to change the environment and they give garbage data via their global network of conspirator-scientists from NOAA, NASA, AMS, JMA, USGS, the US Navy...

The Navy is in on it? Now I'm really disappointed.

santafe2
12-19-09, 02:53 AM
...what Gore and his fellow AGW alarmists try to do is to expand the basic warming trend to cover the entire long chain of AGW-CO2-catastrophe theory.

The crux of the theory is actually NOT the greenhouse effect of CO2 as he says above.

It is that the CO2 is a magic multiplier (or 'forcing') - the Immaculate Molecules - which will cause everything else to warm.

This theory has never been experimentally found.

A Green House Gas, (GHG), like CO2 is a heat multiplier. Although not magic, it is one of many climate radiative forcings. It is well accepted in the scientific community that earth would have a mean temperature of -15C without our GHG friends. Chilly world with or without Uncle Al.

Now don't let the kids read this, but free range carbon is a bit of a tramp and will mate with 2 oxygen atoms. Plants and oceans are into this kind of thing but we've been cutting forests down and dumping CO2 in the atmosphere for so long, they can't keep up. If the ocean wasn't sick for this kind of action we'd have much more CO2 in the atmosphere than we do today.

So because plants and the ocean won't step up, CO2 is more abundant today than it was 100 years ago. At 19 lbs. per gallon of gas, etc., etc., the oceans and terrestrial plants have allowed a backlog of CO2 to build...slackers.

And, as if it wasn't sick enough that carbon was down with an oxygen threesome, this little group loves to capture a photon escaping earth's atmosphere and then give it a random toss. About 1/2 are recycled and that is a radiative forcing. That is the green house effect and today we've got about 50% more than we had 150 years ago.

I suppose it is immaculate in that we can't fault the molecule for it's proclivity.

c1ue
12-19-09, 03:43 PM
So because plants and the ocean won't step up, CO2 is more abundant today than it was 100 years ago. At 19 lbs. per gallon of gas, etc., etc., the oceans and terrestrial plants have allowed a backlog of CO2 to build...slackers.

Except for the inconvenient fact that the ocean/natural absorption rate for CO2 has been going up in proportion to overall CO2 levels. Various papers have pointed out that the man-made percentage of atmospheric CO2 still shows zero evidence of increasing.


And, as if it wasn't sick enough that carbon was down with an oxygen threesome, this little group loves to capture a photon escaping earth's atmosphere and then give it a random toss. About 1/2 are recycled and that is a radiative forcing. That is the green house effect and today we've got about 50% more than we had 150 years ago.

I suppose it is immaculate in that we can't fault the molecule for it's proclivity.

Again, you are conflating GHG with forcing. GHG is the heating effect of CO2 itself, forcing is what the GHG effect of CO2 then purportedly causes via changes in water vapor, surface albedo, etc.

One is at least experimentally proven though the general net effect is not; the other is so far pure hypothesis.

santafe2
12-20-09, 02:34 AM
Except for the inconvenient fact that the ocean/natural absorption rate for CO2 has been going up in proportion to overall CO2 levels.

The oceans are the great consumer of CO2 until they reach their saturation point.


Various papers have pointed out that the man-made percentage of atmospheric CO2 still shows zero evidence of increasing.
Without a timescale, this statement has no value. If you're saying early Egyptians and modern US citizens add about the same CO2 into the atmosphere, let's hear it.

Considering the modern era, we know CO2 concentration is increasing...or do you want to argue this basic point? We also know we're directly adding about 27 billion tons of it into the atmosphere every year...or do you want to argue this basic point?

If not, calculate the atomic weight of a CO2 molecule and get back to me with the approximate count of molecules we add each year.


Again, you are conflating GHG with forcing. GHG is the heating effect of CO2 itself, forcing is what the GHG effect of CO2 then purportedly causes via changes in water vapor, surface albedo, etc.
Again you are not understanding a direct and indirect force...;). A GHG like CO2 has a direct force when it captures and releases heat. Since CO2 releases it's captured photons randomly, about 1/2 return to the earth. More CO2, more heat returned to the earth. Then there's the indirect effect like clouds. Since there's more CO2 that is directly returning heat to the earth the clouds are a secondary and indirect forcing. But let's be clear - CO2 is an initial and direct heating force. If you would care to refute the work of Lord Kelvin, have at it.

Diarmuid
12-20-09, 10:45 AM
The oceans are the great consumer of CO2 until they reach their saturation point.



I have a few questions I would like answered regarding the emission and outgassing of CO2, if you would.

Do IPCC models assume that the surface layer of the ocean is in equilibrium? Statis rather then dynamis seems to be embeddded in many of the assumptions of AGW forcing and feedback hypothesis .The sea is thermally active, absorbing heat from the Sun and exchanging heat as well as water with the atmosphere. if this assumption of equilibrium in the surface layer is made does this not lead IPCC to model CO2 as accumulating in the atmosphere in what appears to to be a contradiction to Henry's Law of solubility. Does this not cause its model of Antropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean to slow to the rate of sequestration in deep water, with time constants ranging into many millennia, is this assumption of the slow rate of CO2 sequestration central to the thesis of tipping points?

I understand IPCC models considers the ocean to absorb Antropogenic CO2 at a few gigatons per year, half its emission rate. It reports natural CO2 outgassed from the ocean as being exchanged with the atmosphere at circa 90 gigatons per year(?), 100% of the emission rate. What explanation does the IPCC offers to explain for the accumulation of Antropogenic CO2 but not natural CO2.?

Is the IPCC modeling Earth's carbon cycle differently according to its source, without its dynamic patterns in the atmosphere and the ocean, without its ready dissolution and accumulation in the surface ocean, and without the feedback of its dynamic outgassing from the ocean?

If the atmosphere-ocean CO2 turnover is subject to Henry's Law that states: at a constant temperature the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid – this proportion is approximately 50:1 ocean to atmosphere. Given the fluctuating temperature record over the millennia are the IPCC applying Henry's Law equally to natural and recent anthropogenic CO2 in its models?

c1ue
12-20-09, 03:31 PM
The oceans are the great consumer of CO2 until they reach their saturation point.


This saturation point hasn't been reached nor is there any evidence thus far of it coming soon. Or having been hit in the past.


Without a timescale, this statement has no value. If you're saying early Egyptians and modern US citizens add about the same CO2 into the atmosphere, let's hear it.

Considering the modern era, we know CO2 concentration is increasing...or do you want to argue this basic point? We also know we're directly adding about 27 billion tons of it into the atmosphere every year...or do you want to argue this basic point?

The papers in question examine the record in the last 30 years exactly as all other forms of actual data start from. The point of the papers is that if there is a 'saturation point' in Nature for CO2 - the percentage of man-made CO2 should be increasing. It is not, therefore the saturation point is at a minimum some significant distance away.

As for the amount added, the 27 billions tons sounds like a lot until it is compared with the amount already in the atmosphere: 5.15 x 10 exp 18 kg = 5.68 x 10 exp 9 x 1 billion tons.

Or in other words the CO2 being added to the atmosphere is 0.0000004% of the atmosphere overall, and is 0.1% of the CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Even this is overstating the 27 billion tons' contribution: the CO2 in the atmosphere is released from natural sources and also taken up by natural sinks.

This flow is estimated by IPCC - but the problem with the IPCC methodology is that anything net unaccounted for among sources and sinks is assumed to be man-made.

This method wouldn't be acceptable in any other science - imagine a nuclear physicist saying that all unknown particles from a CERN collider experiment must be the whatever he's looking for.

Lastly the assumption that man is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, and CO2 levels are increasing, therefore man is responsible for the increased CO2 levels is fraught with peril.

For one thing, if indeed there are other sources of the temperature increase, the temperature increase ITSELF would increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

For another thing - any number of other proxies can be used to 'prove' the same point:

a) human population. Humans exhale CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing, therefore human exhalation causes atmospheric CO2 levels to increase.

b) cow population. Cows exhale CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing, therefore bovine exhalation causes atmospheric CO2 levels to increase.

c) cubic meters of concrete. Concrete outgasses CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing, therefore concrete outgassing causes atmospheric CO2 levels to increase.

etc etc.

As I've noted before: if you look for a problem to your solution, you always find it.


Again you are not understanding a direct and indirect force...;). A GHG like CO2 has a direct force when it captures and releases heat. Since CO2 releases it's captured photons randomly, about 1/2 return to the earth. More CO2, more heat returned to the earth. Then there's the indirect effect like clouds. Since there's more CO2 that is directly returning heat to the earth the clouds are a secondary and indirect forcing. But let's be clear - CO2 is an initial and direct heating force. If you would care to refute the work of Lord Kelvin, have at it.

The problem with your statement is you are making the assumption that CO2 is THE primary driver.

If your statement is true, then the past instances of temperatures decreasing as CO2 levels increase lend great doubt to your statement.

Similarly the past instances of CO2 levels INCREASING while temperatures plummetted into an Ice Age also are inconvenient.

The other problem is that you are conflating CO2 as a GHG with the role CO2 plays in the overall atmosphere.

Why is this a problem? For this I use another analogy: a black box taking into oil and gasoline and outputting energy, CO2, and water vapor.

Without understanding the actual working of the black box, we know oil and gasoline are combustible energy sources which output CO2 and water vapor and energy. It is then a matter of modeling to create an equation which takes in oil and gasoline for combustion and outputs the appropriate CO2, water vapor, and energy.

The problem with this is that if the black box is a combustion engine, the oil is never burned (except when the engine is broken :p). The fact that oil is combustible is totally irrelevant. Gasoline is the primary driver, oil is merely a secondary variable - though important if it runs OUT. Adding more oil does nothing to increase the energy, water vapor, or CO2 output unless there was insufficient oil to start with.

The point being: your simplistic understanding may very well be VERY wrong. Your assumptions are reasonable taken individually, but as a comprehensive theory it may miss actual understanding of actual behavior - much as the gasoline/oil/CO2/water vapor/energy combustion model example would.

And much as a policy based on a wrong gasoline/oil/CO2/water vapor/energy combustion model could be - i.e. adding more oil to get more energy, so might a wrong and simplistic understanding of CO2's role in the atmosphere lead to incorrect and useless policies.