Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

Self explanatory

Read the thread. It's all there.

 

Read the quote. It said "So why in little more than a decade after the global cooling scare of the mid-1970s was the IPCC certain about human-induced global warming?

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California has introduced a measure for government oversight as part of the CO2 trading. She said:

“[FONT=&quot]This landmark legislation will not only significantly reduce our nation’s carbon footprint, it will also generate tremendous economic potential. In fact, new carbon markets – with annual values of approximately $300 billion – are expected to emerge once Congress establishes a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions.”[/FONT]

“[FONT=&quot]Over roughly the past 15 years, the United States has invested heavily in scientific research, monitoring, data management, and assessment for climate change analyses to build a foundation of knowledge for decision making. To date, more than $20 billion of research funding has been provided by U.S. agencies and departments.[/FONT]”

I see your memory is as selective as the IPCC's

 

Once again selective memory. :dis:

Stephen Schneider co-authored a paper in 1971 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate"

Here are the opening paragraphs of that paper -

[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=+1]ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Abstract. Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Becuase of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern 1 . In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to have increased by 7 percent 2 . During the same period, the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been augmented by as much as 100 percent 3 .[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]How have these changes in the composition of the atmosphere affected the climate of the globe? More importantly, is it possible that a continued increase in the CO2 and dust content of the atmosphere at the present rate will produce such large-scale effects on the global temperature that the process may run away, with the planet Earth eventually becoming as hot as Venus (700 deg. K.) or as cold as Mars (230 deg. K.)?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!

[/FONT]He is now a member of the UN IPCC and is a leading advocate warning that the Earth is facing catastrophic global warming.

Stanford University is doing anything it can to censor his flip flop from a coming ice age proponent in the 1970's to his current advocacy of man-made global warming fears.

 

Revisionism will be a hallmark of the digital age. Manmade global warming will be the training ground.

You don't have to delete information to revise it. You just have to put so much disinformation out there that folks can't figure out what you originally said (because you've also trained them to not think for themselves and to have a 90second attention span on a good day....)

 

i hate to say it, but much of this stuff occurs in my field of science, too.

ive not read much about this story, but it would seem less significant than most here think because i assume there is substantial redundancy in this area of research---numerous labs, in numerous places, independently generating data.
the dogma of science doesnt turn easily or quickly. it takes more than work (even if it is massive) from one group to become part of the lexicon.

griping about editors/reviewers is ubiquitous. unfortunately, so is improper use of data. very few manufacture it---if the conclusions are important, they are eventually outed. some/many cherry-pick to fit the story. many improperly analyze data unknowingly--not many really know statistics, and they are statisticians, not geologists or bacteriologists.

 

I remain unconvinced that they don't have an agenda, which is to show that climate change is caused by humans.

 

i wasnt trying to convince you. i think you are right about many of them although it depends on how you define "agenda". i dont think any of them do not believe it but push it anyway for career/political purposes. most scientists, even the best ones, usually come to believe something, based on their data, then try to convince everyone else. some even believe it so much they inject themselves with HIV to prove it doesnt cause AIDS, or injest helicobacter pylori to prove it causes gastric ulcers.

i think you underestimate the amount of research that goes in to establishing any scientific consensus. and these are typically very cut-throat, competitive people. they try their best to pick apart every one else's research.