How can you take an entire E-mail,proving global warming is a scam, out of context?

Question

The emails show conversations between alarmists scientists not only discussing ways to manipulate data, but also how and when they did. How can entire emails quoted word for word be taken out of context? And if there is nothing to these emails why is Mr. Jones stepping down, and it is getting harder and harder to find a climatologist who believes in global warming?

Answer 1

Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).



But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."



The bible I'm referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific literature. It's our canon, and it's all we have really had to go on in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted). When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science.... read more at link below...



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Answer 2

Keith P wrote "in an email frequently quoted by deniers, Kevin Trenberth says . . ." and goes on to defend Dr Trenberth's emails.



Long before the emails were leaked though, Tenberth had already been denounced by one of his own climate scientists who had helped write the IPCC report. Trenberth gave a press conference in 2004 blaming the recent hurricanes on global warming. Reuters reported from the press conference that



"The four hurricanes that bashed Florida and the Caribbean within a five-week period over the summer, intense storms over the western Pacific, heat waves that killed tens of thousands of Europeans last year and a continued drought across the U.S. southwest are only the beginning, the experts said."



Chris Landsea, a research meteorologist with NOAA, felt he had no choice but to resign and wrote in his open letter of resignation from the IPCC:



"Dear colleagues,



After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns . . .



I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin . . .



I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.



Sincerely, Chris Landsea"



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As this letter shows - which bear in mind was written by a climate scientist who was working for the IPCC - the whole process has been subverted from science to a political agenda. The alarmists/haters will all claim that "the emails have been taken out of context" - actually they are only the tip of the iceberg.

Answer 3

Only alarmists and scam artists can take emails like these and make them look benign. Truth is, they're now exposed for who they really are and their socialist agenda is clear. The world's "top scientists" have lied to us all along about global warming.

Answer 4

This is my favorite quote about climategate. I quoted it before, but it is worth quoting again, because the tunnel vision of global warming cheerleaders is really astonishing



"The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering." Clive Crook



Then listen to this damning commentary



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8

Answer 5

You have taken facts out of context: This is the statement from the American Meteorological Society. They are not politically biased. They gather data, and it is analyzed over and again via the scientific method.





Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change

AMS Headquarters has received several inquiries asking if the material made public following the hacking of e-mails and other files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has any impact on the AMS Statement on Climate Change, which was approved by the AMS Council in 2007 and represents the official position of the Society.



The AMS Statement on Climate Change continues to represent the position of the AMS. It was developed following a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society. The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature. As with any scientific assessment, it is likely to become outdated as the body of scientific knowledge continues to grow, and the current statement is scheduled to expire in February 2012 if it is not replaced by a new statement prior to that.



The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results. This process, which is tied intrinsically to the procedures leading to publication of research results in the peer-reviewed literature, allows the scientific community to confirm some results while rejecting others. It also, in a sense, lessens the impact of any one set of research results, especially as the body of research on any topic grows. The AMS plays an important role in the scientific process through its peer-reviewed publications, as well as through its many other activities, such as scientific conferences. The Society strives to maintain integrity in the editorial process for all its publications.



For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.



The AMS encourages ethical behavior in all aspects of science and has established a record of affirming the value of scientists presenting their research results “objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts” (see AMS Statement on the Freedom of Scientific Expression).



Keith L. Seitter, CCM

Executive Director











Updated: 11/25/2009

Answer 6

Because if you're only reading one email, and not the reply, and the reply to the reply, then you're taking it out of context.



Example:

In an email frequently quoted by deniers, Kevin Trenberth says, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt



Apparently you think this email "proves global warming is a scam." If so, you're taking it out of context. Because here's the reply to Trenberth, from Tom Wigley:



"I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.



Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.



These sums complement Kevin's energy work.



Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of

warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't". I do not

agree with this."

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1051&filename=1255496484.txt



So Kevin Trenberth says we can't account for the lack of warming, and Wigley immediately shows that we CAN indeed account for the lack of warming, from solar (TSI) and El Niño (ENSO) effects. And what is Trenberth's reply to this? Does he stick doggedly to his guns like a denier, unaffected by actual evidence?



Nope. You've misunderstood my point, says Trenberth:



"Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? We know there is a build up of ocean heat prior to El Nino, and a discharge (and sfc T warming) during late stages of El Nino, but is the observing system sufficient to track it? Quite aside from the changes in the ocean, we know there are major changes in the storm tracks and teleconnections with ENSO, and there is a LOT more rain on land during La Nina (more drought in El Nino), so how does the albedo change overall (changes in cloud)? At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it."

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt



So when Kevin Trenberth said "we can't account" for the lack of warming, he didn't mean we don't know the ultimate cause of the lack of warming -- since that was obviously El Niño -- but rather, that we don't know the immediate cause: where did the heat go? And its clear from reading both emails IN CONTEXT that what he's complaining about is that the global climate isn't monitored closely enough to answer that question.



That's what I mean by "taking out of context." Trenberth's emails don't prove any kind of hoax, in fact they prove the reverse: good scientists working hard to find the truth and pin down the details.

Answer 7

I don't even care about those E-mails.

So there are 2 freaking thousand E-mails and there's ONE that has the following sentence: do the trick. And you want me to believe that is proof that global warming is a Hoax. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Aaaaahaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaahaaaaa

Ahaaaahaaaahaaaaaa

Wait wait I need some fresh air, oh wait there is none around here.

Answer 8

they stepped down because it is true global warming is a scam and it's objective is to control people

Answer 9

Because The American Media covers it up.

Answer 10

Easily, apparently.



"Hide the decline" ring any bells? Out of context it seems like they are talking about global temperatures. They weren't. They were talking about the tree ring divergence, which is hardly a secret.