# Where does the "97% agree with GW" number come from? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 20, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265 "2012-03-20T00:16:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/61 "2012-03-26T02:55:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that was not the point there, the point was that even on policy one should not rely on the blind leading the blind, deniers (the blind in this case) of the basics should be ignored now. > > And regardless of your useless nitpick, the economist is still recommending that we should do something, history and evidence shows us already that the interested people are the ones spending a lot of money and resources to fund the creation of misleading information so then nothing will be done. Policy is informed by science, and the consensus of science is: a) Temperatures have increased from 1800 b) Humans have played a significant role (I wholeheartedly agree with both) But it isn’t about: a) ammount of temperature rise past, present, and future b) possible damages/benefits for temperature increase c) accepting the levels of forcings or its sign d) how to prevent damage/ increase benefit e) cost-benefit analyses of what, if any, to do. These means that the consensus of climate scientists can only give non-actuable information, yet the consensus is used as an excuse to push political agendas giving them a scientific veneer. My GigoBusteR-English dictionary says Useless nitpick = Yeah, it’s true, but since I don’t have any answers I’ll pretend it doesn’t exist. Significatn is not the same as “most important”, if you fail to recognise it, there’s nothing i can do. Money, how much? who? More money than Greenpeace (310 mill), Sierra CLub (200 mill) NOAA, NASA, IPCC? Not even in the same ballpark, not even in the same league. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/62 "2012-03-26T03:27:26Z")
> [@Woodenspoon](#): > > You have to go back to 2008 to find an article on lomborg? Well, the government that funded him cut him off more recently as many saw him not doing something useful. > **[New Danish Government Axes Bjorn Lomborg's $1.6 Million In Funding](https://www.desmog.com/2011/09/28/new-danish-government-axes-bjorn-lomborg-s-1-6-million-funding/)** > > Finally, a vestigial government-funded program actually worth cutting gets taken out as Denmark’s new regime change is opting to excise Bjorn Lomborg’s $1.6 million in funding for his Copenhagen Consensus Center. “It’s been very strange that... > [@Woodenspoon](#): > > You’d have to be incredibly naive to believe germans are investing in renewables out of the goodness of their hearts. If you had actually looked at whats driving the demand, its nothing but perverse incentive after perverse incentive. What you said was “Germany scrapped its solar program” the whole truth was that it was just a cut on the subsidies, not the same at all, so yeah, Hot Air and Lomborg should not be trusted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/63 "2012-03-26T03:36:22Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Money, how much? who? > More money than Greenpeace (310 mill), Sierra CLub (200 mill) NOAA, NASA, IPCC? > Not even in the same ballpark, not even in the same league. Not worth it to reply to your ad nauseam and personal attacks, but a cite here is needed, care to show the climate scientists accused of being on the payroll of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club? And you do demonstrate monumental ignorance if you are not aware of how much the scientists and policy makers that work at the IPCC make. > **[DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science](https://skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selective-nipcc-science.html)** > > DenialGate - the leaked internal documents from the climate science denying think tank Heartland Institute - has given us a small glimpse into the operations of the climate denial movement.  Funds from a few wealthy individuals and corporations are... > [@](#): > > The IPCC Report > > First, a few words about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The IPCC report is one of the most impressive, comprehensive scientific documents in existence. Every ~5 to 7 years, the IPCC invites some of the world’s best climate scientists to contribute to the report, putting together a chapter on their respective fields of expertise. The climate scientists contribute their time pro bono, putting their own research projects on hold and locking themselves away for weeks on end, compiling all the up-to-date research and summarizing it in their assigned chapters. The climate scientists are willing to do this without pay because it is an honor to contribute to the monumental end product that is the IPCC report. ---
**Author:** ![Zagzigger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Zagzigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagzigger)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/64 "2012-03-26T05:44:20Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Dude, I told you. You really need to learn when not to quote. > > [‘Climategate’ Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html) > > Darn those grownups. Party-poopers. I suggest you go and read the emails - it’s quite easy. Google is your friend. If you then say you are happy that the people who wrote them did it on your money and display a healthy attitude to science and furthermore, you are happy to take their advice on what’s good for you and the rest of us in the way of massive change in lifestyle - then, I have nothing left to say. I thought politicians were ruthless and cavalier with the truth - but then maybe we live in a post-normal world where this kind of stuff is the new-normal. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/65 "2012-03-26T05:52:23Z")
> [@Zagzigger](#): > > I suggest you go and read the emails - it’s quite easy. Google is your friend. > > If you then say you are happy that the people who wrote them did it on your money and display a healthy attitude to science and furthermore, you are happy to take their advice on what’s good for you and the rest of us in the way of massive change in lifestyle - then, I have nothing left to say. > I thought politicians were ruthless and cavalier with the truth - but then maybe we live in a post-normal world where this kind of stuff is the new-normal. [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/09/208050/vindicating-climate-science/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/09/208050/vindicating-climate-science/) > [@](#): > > There is a pretty good BBC story, “Climate e-mail reviews ‘leave science sound’.” Here’s more from the Government Response. First, their bottom line: > > > [@](#): > > > > The findings of the Committee give us confidence in our judgement that the conclusions are well thought through and that no events at CRU undermine the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change. > > What about the claim that CRU had somehow been trying to undermine the peer review process? The Science and Technology Committee had said: > > > [@](#): > > > > The conclusions reached by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER) are in line with our predecessor Committee’s findings that “the evidence they saw did not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process and that academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers”. We stand by this conclusion and are satisfied with the detailed analysis of the allegations by the ICCER. > > The UK Government agrees with that conclusion: > > > [@](#): > > > > The Government notes the Committee’s conclusion that there was no evidence of attempts to subvert the peer review process, and agrees that academics should not be criticised for commenting informally on academic papers, noting that constructive criticism and challenge is fundamental to ensuring a robust scientific approach. Obviously Google is not your friend as Google pointed once again what several investigations found out, trash talk from the scientists is just wishful thinking when no other evidence is available to show that they followed on those thoughts. And the worst is that most of the email trash talk was taken out of context and deniers misrepresented what the scientists actually said. ---
**Author:** ![Bemused](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bemused](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bemused)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/66 "2012-03-26T06:22:07Z")
> [@Zagzigger](#): > > What’s somehow worse, is that all this is pulling down the authority of science - and when it all unravels, as it must, the standing of science will be forever damaged. The scientific process has been badly, badly corrupted by this GW stuff. No doubt about it, and the result is to make it far harder for us to get the answers that we really do need to get. But scientific authority ultimately won’t be damaged. There is some evidence (such as climategate and such as the backing away of a lot of the population from slavish belief in the concept) that the scientific method will purge itself as it has done in the past. After all, you can cook your books forever, and insist up is down. But ultimately, when you drop that ball, it’s gonna fall DOWN, regardless of what you’ve claimed. The climate system is so complex that sorting this out will take awhile, but sooner or later we’ll get there. And, as a pedantic statement, no one at all should BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE in ANY scientific theory. You should follow the evidence, and accept the data. Any statement that says “I believe in …” when the topic is science is merely stating that “I don’t understand science” BTW…I’m a plasma physicist by training though I don’t work in the field and have not for a long time. I don’t work in climate research. However, I am well equipped to understand the subject, have an extensive background in computer modeling and simulation, and I have been looking very very closely at this subject for many years now. I don’t feel like debating it now, but I do consider the field of climate science to be very badly corrupted, and the models have a long way to go before they can be trusted. If the topic is “anthropogenic climate change”, then I’m completely convinced; we are changing our environment in many, many ways and we badly need to get a handle on it. If the topic is “anthropogenic global warming”, then the evidence is at best thoroughly ambiguous. It is not clear that what we are doing is causing the planet to warm, though it is clear that the planet has been in a warming trend. So, as I see it, all this focus on CO2 is akin to me going to the doctor and the doctor saying to me: “you have heart disease, but I don’t find it convenient to treat you for heart disease. I make more money if I treat you for cancer. So I’m starting you on chemotherapy.” Cutting our emissions of CO2 as rapidly as makes economic and technical sense just seems like a good plan to me. But I am completely unconvinced that it is an urgent situation and I think that approaching it with panic is just going to divert resources from the real problems (deforestation, fresh water maintenance, soil maintenance, poisoning of oceans, other atmosphere chemical contaminants, etc), damage the global economy, and generally impair our ability to address what is probably more important than CO2. ---
**Author:** ![Bemused](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bemused](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bemused)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/67 "2012-03-26T06:49:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/09/208050/vindicating-climate-science/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/09/208050/vindicating-climate-science/) > > Obviously Google is not your friend as Google pointed once again what several investigations found out, trash talk from the scientists is just wishful thinking when no other evidence is available to show that they followed on those thoughts. And the worst is that most of the email trash talk was taken out of context and deniers misrepresented what the scientists actually said. I spend days reading those emails after they were released. There was one thing in them that was substantially misrepresented in the press, and that was the talk about the mathematical “trick” that was used to make the results come out right. This was taken as being something sinister, when in fact “trick” in the context merely meant a way of looking at the problem and an elegant mechanism that neatly simplified and solved what otherwise looked like a difficult problem. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, when I kept seeing the perjorative references to “tricks” in the popular press, it disgusted me and told me that the author simply didn’t understand what he was reading. That said, there was plenty in those emails to get upset about - they were indeed totally damning. There was talk about how to replace the editor of a climate magazine to get one in place who would be more amenable to their goals, and who would be less willing to publish papers that didn’t support the global warming scenario. There was talk about the famous “hockey-stick” graph, which turned out to be fundamentally flawed because the underlying computer code would (incorrectly) pull a “hockey stick” correlation out of ANY data, and this talk wasn’t appropriate, but more along the lines of “damage control”. Professor Jones wrote in an email about how someone had tried to get him to release his source data and he refused stating that “you’ll only use the data to criticize the work I’ve spent years on” - or words to that close effect. When I read that I was absolutely appalled. After all, the primary purpose of science is to knock down any theory that is put up, with the idea that the theory that can’t be knocked down is likely to be the best theory. To this end, you ALWAYS publish your data. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS. An attitude that I won’t publish my data is totally contrary to the philosophy and practice of science, and most certainly is damning. I spent days reading those emails, several hours a day. I didn’t read them all, and I’m not even sure I read most of them. But I read enough. My general conclusion is that the group there is insular, has very much a “groupthink” mentality, views those who oppose them on the scientific merits as enemies to be beaten down and suppressed rather than colleagues to be convinced, and in general is more interested in protecting their turf than in genuinely advancing science. I am absolutely convinced that they have fallen into the classical scientific heresy; having constructed a theory, they are not trying to pull it down. Instead, they are trying to bolster it. And that, by ANY scientific measure, is the wrong thing to do. I don’t care what any third-party has to say about those emails. I don’t care about gov’t whitewashes. None of the money flows to me; I am completely independent. I have no axe to grind, I am totally fact-driven and want to get at the truth. I read those emails. They were absolutely damning. ---
**Author:** ![Zagzigger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Zagzigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagzigger)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/68 "2012-03-26T06:52:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > . And the worst is that most of the email trash talk was taken out of context and deniers misrepresented what the scientists actually said. Well read it for yourself - especially “MIke’ Nature Trick”. They had to admit it - it’s in the emails. See: _I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline._ “_Hide the decline_” refers to the tree ring data showing a declining temperature, while all along they’s been telling us it had been increasing. That, to me, is rank deception bordering on fraud. Think for yourself and look it up - don’t believe people who would be out of a job if they were to admit it. If you choose to believe people writing this stuff - then good luck, be careful with your money. ---
**Author:** ![Zagzigger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Zagzigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagzigger)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/69 "2012-03-26T06:58:36Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > I spend days reading those emails after they were released. > > There was one thing in them that was substantially misrepresented in the press, and that was the talk about the mathematical “trick” that was used to make the results come out right. This was taken as being something sinister, when in fact “trick” in the context merely meant a way of looking at the problem and an elegant mechanism that neatly simplified and solved what otherwise looked like a difficult problem. Nothing wrong with that at all. > > In fact, when I kept seeing the perjorative references to “tricks” in the popular press, it disgusted me and told me that the author simply didn’t understand what he was reading. > > That said, there was plenty in those emails to get upset about - they were indeed totally damning. There was talk about how to replace the editor of a climate magazine to get one in place who would be more amenable to their goals, and who would be less willing to publish papers that didn’t support the global warming scenario. > > There was talk about the famous “hockey-stick” graph, which turned out to be fundamentally flawed because the underlying computer code would (incorrectly) pull a “hockey stick” correlation out of ANY data, and this talk wasn’t appropriate, but more along the lines of “damage control”. > > Professor Jones wrote in an email about how someone had tried to get him to release his source data and he refused stating that “you’ll only use the data to criticize the work I’ve spent years on” - or words to that close effect. When I read that I was absolutely appalled. After all, the primary purpose of science is to knock down any theory that is put up, with the idea that the theory that can’t be knocked down is likely to be the best theory. To this end, you ALWAYS publish your data. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS. > > An attitude that I won’t publish my data is totally contrary to the philosophy and practice of science, and most certainly is damning. > > I spent days reading those emails, several hours a day. I didn’t read them all, and I’m not even sure I read most of them. But I read enough. My general conclusion is that the group there is insular, has very much a “groupthink” mentality, views those who oppose them on the scientific merits as enemies to be beaten down and suppressed rather than colleagues to be convinced, and in general is more interested in protecting their turf than in genuinely advancing science. > > I am absolutely convinced that they have fallen into the classical scientific heresy; having constructed a theory, they are not trying to pull it down. Instead, they are trying to bolster it. And that, by ANY scientific measure, is the wrong thing to do. > > I don’t care what any third-party has to say about those emails. I don’t care about gov’t whitewashes. None of the money flows to me; I am completely independent. I have no axe to grind, I am totally fact-driven and want to get at the truth. > > I read those emails. They were absolutely damning. Totally agree with everything you’ve written here. My own experience was that everywhere I probed with a few questions, it all turned to mush. A real sad, sad episode for science. It’s breaking now - let’s hope it won’t take too long. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/70 "2012-03-26T06:59:35Z")
> [@Zagzigger](#): > > Well read it for yourself - especially “MIke’ Nature Trick”. > They had to admit it - it’s in the emails. See: > _I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps > to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from > 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline._ > > “_Hide the decline_” refers to the tree ring data showing a declining temperature, while all along they’s been telling us it had been increasing. > That, to me, is rank deception bordering on fraud. > > Think for yourself and look it up - don’t believe people who would be out of a job if they were to admit it. > > If you choose to believe people writing this stuff - then good luck, be careful with your money. Oh well, just show others that you do not read cites and is unwilling to check what scientists actually say. > **[Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'](https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm)** > > \'Mike's Nature trick' refers to the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales. > [@](#): > > The “decline” refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports. > > There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones’ email. When one takes the time to read the email and understand the science discussed, the misconceptions are easily put into proper context. > The “decline” is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature > > Phil Jones’ email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to “hide the decline in global temperatures”. This claim is patently false and demonstrates ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960. > > Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature and hence tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the “divergence problem”. Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades. > > The “decline” has nothing to do with “Mike’s trick”. > > Phil Jones talks about “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/71 "2012-03-26T07:09:13Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > So, as I see it, all this focus on CO2 is akin to me going to the doctor and the doctor saying to me: “you have heart disease, but I don’t find it convenient to treat you for heart disease. I make more money if I treat you for cancer. So I’m starting you on chemotherapy.” As pointed before, you have to learn now that it is the ones that claim that there is corruption on this the ones that are playing fast and loose with the facts. To begin with, are you even aware of the several investigations that found just evidence that researchers are human (but not dishonest as the investigations found no followups to their trash talk)? What you need to check is sources that are set like Talkorigins is for biologists that deal with creationists, climate scientists have skeptical science. > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... That link goes to many legion examples of myths that are still supported by deniers, no matter how big the evidence is. To start to see how supported is the climate science of today you should start here: > **[10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/10-indicators-of-a-human-fingerprint-on-climate-change.html)** > > The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what's causing global warming?... > [@](#): > > The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what’s causing global warming? To answer this, here is a summary of the empirical evidence that answer this question. Many different observations find a distinct human fingerprint on climate change: > [@](#): > > Science isn’t a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it’s like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what’s driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/72 "2012-03-26T07:20:05Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > I don’t care what any third-party has to say about those emails. I don’t care about gov’t whitewashes. None of the money flows to me; I am completely independent. I have no axe to grind, I am totally fact-driven and want to get at the truth. > > I read those emails. They were absolutely damning. So was Peter Hadfield, a science reporter and a huge debunker of creationism pap, he is also fact driven and he also fell for the spin deniers made of the stolen emails. Until he checked the context and found that the ones peddling the scandal were the ones selling snake oil. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/4OB2prBtVFo/hqdefault.jpg "22 -- Climategate mark 2 -- the quotes and the context") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo) ---
**Author:** ![Bemused](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bemused](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bemused)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/73 "2012-03-26T07:25:06Z")
\*To begin with, are you even aware of the several investigations that found just evidence that researchers are human (but not dishonest as the investigations found no followups to their trash talk)? \* See my subsequent post. I really don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone else said; I read the emails for myself. And there certainly was follow-up. Jones didn’t release his data. When he was forced to through a gov’t freedom of information action, some of his data “went missing” and “through some innocent errors” a lot of their source data was just deleted and is now gone, thus making it impossible to check on their conclusions. An awful lot of the follow-up isn’t something that would be found by investigators, the more so because the research team would explicitly hide it from the researchers. This follow-up consists fundamentally of attitude. A proper attitude of scientific enquiry would require them to be far more open about their mechanisms, not merely their conclusions. They wouldn’t seek “damage control” over the hockey stick thing; they’d celebrate that some bad results were uncovered and repudiated. These debates on these forums inevitably turn into citation-fests, involving second party, third party and n’th party writings. I will tell you that in almost every case where I put forth an opinion, it is a first hand opinion developed by me from my own review of the source data and the computer models. This doesn’t mean I’m right, but I’m not depending on anyone else to tell me what to think. Often enough, what someone else says puts me on the track of something, but if the opinion I express is something I got from someone else, I’ll tell you so. And there are some things that I know I’m right about. Those emails show a research group at East Anglia that has gone badly astray. I wouldn’t trust a report from them that declared that the sun rises in the east. They are doing it wrong; those emails make that perfectly clear. ---
**Author:** ![Zagzigger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Zagzigger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagzigger)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/74 "2012-03-26T07:28:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Oh well, just show others that you do not read cites and is unwilling to check what scientists actually say. > > [Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm) To quote you: Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature and hence tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the “divergence problem”. **Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.** And why might that be? Nobody knows? A far easier and simpler explanation is that the tree rings do not reliably correlate with temperature. Or put another way: Question: How did anyone know when they started diverging? Answer: When it didn’t agree with the theory. Words fail me. If I’d have put that forward when I was at college, I would have been laughed at. And if you tried that selling stocks and shares, you’d be in jail. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/75 "2012-03-26T07:33:25Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > \*To begin with, are you even aware of the several investigations that found just evidence that researchers are human (but not dishonest as the investigations found no followups to their trash talk)? \* > > See my subsequent post. I really don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone else said; I read the emails for myself. But missed the context, that was clear. > [@Bemused](#): > > And there certainly was follow-up. Jones didn’t release his data. When he was forced to through a gov’t freedom of information action, some of his data “went missing” and “through some innocent errors” a lot of their source data was just deleted and is now gone, thus making it impossible to check on their conclusions. Uh, no, the data was checked, they agree with what Jones found before. [http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement](http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement) > [@Bemused](#): > > An awful lot of the follow-up isn’t something that would be found by investigators, the more so because the research team would explicitly hide it from the researchers. This follow-up consists fundamentally of attitude. > > A proper attitude of scientific enquiry would require them to be far more open about their mechanisms, not merely their conclusions. They wouldn’t seek “damage control” over the hockey stick thing; they’d celebrate that some bad results were uncovered and repudiated. And that is what the emails showed too as reported by Hadfield. > [@Bemused](#): > > These debates on these forums inevitably turn into citation-fests, involving second party, third party and n’th party writings. Not the case here, Hadfield actually shows examples of how emails were cut to say the opposite of what the researchers said. > [@Bemused](#): > > I will tell you that in almost every case where I put forth an opinion, it is a first hand opinion developed by me from my own review of the source data and the computer models. This doesn’t mean I’m right, but I’m not depending on anyone else to tell me what to think. Often enough, what someone else says puts me on the track of something, but if the opinion I express is something I got from someone else, I’ll tell you so. Well you where wrong then, not hard to do when confronted by deceptive information. > [@Bemused](#): > > And there are some things that I know I’m right about. Those emails show a research group at East Anglia that has gone badly astray. I wouldn’t trust a report from them that declared that the sun rises in the east. They are doing it wrong; those emails make that perfectly clear. No. You are continuing to ignore the context, it is clear that the ones peddling this “scandal” have an ax to grind. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/76 "2012-03-26T07:42:28Z")
BTW, you may ignore Skeptical Science, but you should be aware that the reason why even Republican conservative scientists like Barry Bickmore recommend it is that the science is linked to in the articles. And what is his take on climate gate? > **[New Stolen E-mails Released](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/new-stolen-e-mails-released/)** > > It looks like the B-list of stolen e-mails have now been released by the people who hacked the University of East Anglia’s server.  They originally released the ones with the really juicy can… > [@](#): > > Now the dust has settled, and several independent panels have cleared the scientists involved of cooking their data, or any other serious infraction. The worst thing anyone found is that some of the CRU scientists felt like they were being harassed with ridiculous FOI requests, so they tried to ignore them. The temperature reconstructions in question have been replicated umpteen times, so that only seriously damaged individuals still have serious questions about whether they are approximately correct. > > This time around, as I peruse the out-of-context quotations provided by climate change contrarian bloggers, I’m not even getting a minor change in heart rate. The quotations (even out of context!) are that boring. > > Hopefully the media will see this for what it is–a pathetic attempt to distract the public from the fact that the contrarians don’t have a scientific leg to stand on. ---
**Author:** ![Bemused](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bemused](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bemused)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/77 "2012-03-26T07:46:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So was Peter Hadfield, a science reporter and a huge debunker of creationism pap, he is also fact driven and he also fell for the spin deniers made of the stolen emails. > > Until he checked the context and found that the ones peddling the scandal were the ones selling snake oil. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo) So where’s the problem? I agree with everything he said in this video. In fact you will note that I started my post by talking about the “trick” and how it was being misrepresented. And from there, he talked about things that I didn’t pay any attention to. I read the emails, I did not read the statements of the conspiracy theorists. The thing about the “trick” crossed my desk, but I don’t remember any of the rest of it, and I haven’t taken any quotes out of context. I have specifically mentioned a couple of other issues that the conspiracy theorists missed, didn’t understand, or couldn’t pull a good soundbite out of. And I have roundly criticized a general attitude that shines through clearly. I haven’t even addressed their data or their conclusions. I have particular reasons for that; I understand what they did, and I recognize both the strengths and the weaknesses in what they did. It may be the best they could do. It may be right, it may be wrong. But it is certainly open to criticism, and the criticisms become immensely technical and not appropriate for this forum. But the general attitude. The insularity. The “groupthink”. Their obvious unwillingness to brook the criticisms. All unacceptable. It isn’t a conspiracy. It is a field corrupted by money and politics that is worked by people who are falible. The corruption shows very clearly in East Anglia. The fallible team in East Anglia has fallen into the most serious heresy of science; they are NOT attempting to disprove their theory. Instead, they are working to bolster it. This will cause them to inappropriately weight any data that might tend to contradict their theory, perhaps without even realizing it. Now, it isn’t all their fault. The conspiracy theorists are definitely out there. There is a HUGE amount of ranting - on both sides of the aisle - and the result is to totally obscure the legitimate and important scientific discussion. Rush Limbaugh is a complete and total moron when he denies any validity to any of this. But the fact is that the science is far from settled. And all the politicization makes it harder and harder to make genuine progress in the field. ---
**Author:** ![Bemused](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/46a35a/32.png) [@Bemused](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bemused)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/78 "2012-03-26T07:50:57Z")
\*No. You are continuing to ignore the context, it is clear that the ones peddling this “scandal” have an ax to grind. \* Have you, yourself read the emails? If so, can you tell me how I, who has read them, am missing the context? If not, then how can you make any claim at all, without referring to what someone else is telling you to think? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/79 "2012-03-26T07:54:59Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > But the general attitude. The insularity. The “groupthink”. Their obvious unwillingness to brook the criticisms. > > All unacceptable. And once again, not all the scientists in the misquoted emails did that, and as Hadfield points out, it is the science that counts in the end. > [@Bemused](#): > > But the fact is that the science is far from settled. And all the politicization makes it harder and harder to make genuine progress in the field. Sorry to say but, it was not supposed to be so, and as conservative scientists like Bickmore show, it is the current Republican leaders the ones that are making it as political as it should not be. [http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/11/19/207062/the-climate-zombie-caucus-of-the-112th-congress/](http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/11/19/207062/the-climate-zombie-caucus-of-the-112th-congress/) As for the science being settled: > **[RealClimate: Unsettled Science](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/)** > > RealClimate: Unusually, I'm in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page: "The Climate Science Isn't Settled" The article below is the same mix of innuendo and misrepresentation that its author normally writes,... > [@](#): > > The IPCC reports should be required reading for anyone who thinks that scientists think that the ‘science is settled’ – the vast array of uncertainties that are discussed and dissected puts that notion to bed immediately. But what we do have are reasons for concern. As Mike Hulme recently wrote: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > [S]cience has clearly revealed that humans are influencing global climate and will continue to do so, but we don’t know the full scale of the risks involved, nor how rapidly they will evolve, nor indeed—with clear insight—the relative roles of all the forcing agents involved at different scales. > > … > > The central battlegrounds on which we need to fight out the policy implications of climate change concern matters of risk management, of valuation, and political ideology. We must move the locus of public argumentation here not because the science has somehow been “done” or “is settled”; science will never be either of these things, although it can offer powerful forms of knowledge not available in other ways. It is a false hope to expect science to dispel the fog of uncertainty so that it finally becomes clear exactly what the future holds and what role humans have in causing it. > > > > ``` > > Dealing with the future always involves dealing with uncertainty – and this is as true with climate as it is with the economy. Science has led to a great deal of well-supported concern that increasing emissions of CO2 (in particular) are posing a substantial risk to human society. Playing rhetorical games in the face of this, while momentarily satisfying for blog commenters, is no answer at all to the real issues we face. RealClimate is also one source where current climate scientists and experts are the contributors. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265/80 "2012-03-26T08:14:41Z")
> [@Bemused](#): > > \*No. You are continuing to ignore the context, it is clear that the ones peddling this “scandal” have an ax to grind. \* > > Have you, yourself read the emails? If so, can you tell me how I, who has read them, am missing the context? To begin with, one should change its tune when it is clear that many emails were edited maliciously and cut out of context. BTW, many times that context was clear only on the following investigations, so not checking what context they found is now irresponsible. > **[RealClimate: One year later](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/one-year-later/)** > > RealClimate: Recalling the impact of the climate scientist email hack, 'Climategate', CRU and the RealClimate response. > [@](#): > > Things have clearly calmed down over the last year (despite a bit of a media meltdown in February), but as we predicted, no inquiries found anyone guilty of misconduct, no science was changed and no papers retracted. In the meantime we’ve had one of the hottest years on record, scientists continue to do science, and politicians…. well, they continue to do what politicians do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-does-the-97-agree-with-gw-number-come-from/616265.md?page=5)