Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate
If you are saying on the one hand that you will not take notice of someone until they have been published while on the other you are working behind the scenes to stop any such publication, I would venture to suggest that you are not operating with any degree of bona fides either towards the media or the legitimate scientific process.
Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom. Nowhere is this better evidenced than in the email reproduced in full below (minus Dr. Jones’ contact details):
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
The context in the subject header is clearly the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI), while AR4 refers to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is most important to know here is that, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance in the UK, “at least one FOI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.”
The Freedom of Information Act, however, explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOI request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university. A complaint has been made to the British information commissioner.
This is, however, just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to attitudes toward FOI. Numerous other references are made about ways to avoid divulging information (the following summaries are by the blogger Bishop Hill):
Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them.”(1106338806)
Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. (1107454306)
There appears to be a prima facie case that there was a conspiracy to prevent the release of information subject to FOI.
There are many other disturbing revelations in the CRU Papers, including a particularly disturbing assessment by a computer programmer of the state of CRU data. These have yet to be fully analyzed.
So what does this all mean? It does not mean that there is no warming trend or that mankind has not been responsible for at least some of the warming. To claim that as result of these documents is clearly a step too far. However, it is clear that at least one branch of climate science — paleoclimatology — has become hopelessly politicized to the point of engaging in unethical and possibly illegal behavior.
To the extent that paleoclimatology is an important part of the scientific case for action regarding global warming, urgent reassessments need to be made. In the meantime, all those responsible for political action on global warming should stop the process pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if nothing has happened.
This could prove to be climate science’s Vietnam.
climate science’s vietnam? never, because the news media (and media in general) WANTED vietnam to end. not so with climate science – they are fully invested in the agenda, as opposed to doing their jobs as journalists. they have the power both to bury the issue and to frame it as a scandal about the underhanded skeptics. it’ll be a mere bump in the road, no abu gharib-type getting to the bottom of anything real here.
The CRU data leak — charmingly, now being called Climaquiddick because of the mainstream press’s cooperation in concealing it — is to “climate change” activism as Watergate was to Richard Nixon. Ultimately, everyone substantially involved will become unacceptable in genuine science. But the invalidation of particular activists does not guarantee the derailing of the movement.
My question is whether the leak will prove able to half the political Juggernaut toward totalitarian control of the world economy. The aspiring tyrants of Europe and America see AGW as the vehicle most likely to carry them into infinite and unassailable power, and the mass media have cooperated with them happily at every step. They’re unlikely to surrender that steed until it’s been shot out from under them.
This could be the turning point for human freedom…regardless of which way it turns.
As a Vietnam vet I think the analogy is wrong. I think the Pentagon papers is appropriate.
Iain, from one of your cites:
“All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond – advice they got from the Information Commissioner.”
What do we know about the Information Commissioner, who has been sent a fresh complaint as the result of this revelation?
I don’t think these revelations will have any effect on the AGW true believers. I don’t believe the MSM will change their cynical stance of accepting AGW theory.
But, the science of AGW has now been completely discredited both by this and by the recent global cooling being NOT forecast by any of the AGW computer models and by the global temperature falling while atmospheric CO2 is still rising. CO2 is now clearly a lagging indicator of global warming, not the reverse.
The AGW theory will increasingly be seen as just more partisan politics, advanced by liberals and opposed by conservatives. There is no more science of AGW to tilt the independents toward it. The effect will be that liberals will have to find some other crisis on which to hang their statist ambitions.
AGW true believers will disappear from the stage like the anti-war protesters of the Bush years and the MSM will drop AGW theory like they dropped coverage of the war in Iraq as soon as the surge began working there.
I wonder if the liberals will discover some demographic crisis due to the aging of the baby boomer generation. Some looming crisis that only a massive intrusion by big government could possibly solve.
All criticism by scientists like myself is peer review. All of it. Weather in a journal or in a forum like this it peer review. Now it has become public what many scientists have long known – the peer review argument used by leftist climate scientists is bunk.
I was involved in the leading edge of plate tectonics a generation ago. Today’s climate ‘scientists’ are not up to my standards, either scientifically of ethically.
At present all climate data and interpretation is suspect.
I have always wondered, having extensive technological knowledge of the Wind Generation Data that our firm acquires, if the “Global Warming” miscreants have ever had the accuracy of their Data challenged under due dilligence as ours is by funding institutions.
All of our Instruments must be removed and re-Certified once per year and signed off by a Certified Professional Testing Laboratory. They must be installed by Certified Instrument Technicians, who know the possible geological variables caused by improper placement of the Instruments on location. The Data Acquiaition Computer must be Certified by a professional once per year. And on it goes. These Certificates must be maintained and corelated to the Data time periods. All Data that is acquired outside of the above requirements is discarded.
I have taken teams of Scientific groups Offshore to install Instrumentation for Universities on several occasions, utilizing our Offshore property. I couldnt help but notice that, in reality, they use Non-Certified student/assistants as labor with no competent Professional supervision. Who performs due diligence on their equipment?
Anyone familiar with grant funded research recognizes the pattern here. Competing theories vie for the feed available at the public trough and the duels can become pretty dirty at times. However when the peer review committees and the professional journals become themselves corrupted by blackmail and other activities of doubtful legality the is cause for great concern.
In the case of the global warming debate there is also the fact that the whole idea has become a pseudo religion where the priests excommunicate the wayward and condemn the unbelievers to the no funding hell while smearing their reputations in the process. When such religions can, with impunity, declare themselves the only true faith and impose their doctrine on all (AGW is “settled science”) the results are never pretty as was seen during the Spanish Inquisition or in some modern Islamic paradises.
Hopefully this revelation will allow real scientists to distance themselves from the political wing of climatology. It should also give a backbone to those who were keepiong their mouths shut for fear of losing their jobs.
“The Emperor has no clothes”, go ahead, say it.
We’re not supposed to think that AGW isn’t real? That would be a step too far? Really? Have you lost your damned mind?
These guys have constantly refused to release underlying data. When pressed, they deleted it “by accident’. The emails show that it was no accident. They admit to fudging the data. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. The cover-up always indicates the crime.
AGW is the hoax the detractors have always warned against. After this expose, no one can reasonably assert otherwise, without completely denying human nature. The evidence against AGW has never been refuted, and it has been building up steadily. The AGW-ers have shown that their data was contrived. Game, Set, Match. It’s over. AGW loses.
Mr. Murray – spot on. As for the dinosaur MSM, thank goodness we now have the Internet. Without it, we would all still be in the dark. Like Rathergate, this has got to be spread to others so they can figure out what charlatans these so-called scientists were.
NOW…
“[L]egitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre [the target of much of the criticism in the CRU Papers] who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.”
THEN…
“Galileo’s championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as “false and contrary to Scripture” in February 1616,[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.”–wiki
Same old crap…different century, different church.
An argument to name the scandal climatgate is that these so called laboratories are funded by the government. As deep throat said, “follow the money”, for this case it should be down to the legislative appropriations.
The enlightenment that could result from an extensive investigation can improve the way we do big science. Not only grant management, but the internal politics of university departments and professors.
Instrumentation and record keeping is also involved. ETEE, you are really on to something.
How long before we start to see Al Gore moving his money around?
The reaction to the emails by the right wing shows *exactly* why climate researchers have gotten fed up dealing with conservatives, petroleum industry people, clueless politicians and a corporate news media unable to explain anything more complicated than a traffic report. As I’ve pointed out to slack jawed non-comprehension, the memos only show climate scientists getting increasing frustrated with the way their work has been distorted and bounced around politically. They had nothing to do with creating the politics of climatology, but have had to constantly deal with it, especially in regards to influential American morons like this guy.
Right wingers and conservatives blaming scientists for the politics of global warming is like Bart Simpson going “I didn’t do it.”
It won’t be long before it’s general knowledge that “global warming / climate change science” is PDOOMAs from first to last. At which point two things will happen:
1. The Left will cease to use figures in its AGW campaign, and will fall back on unquantified predictions of doom;
2. Persons with three or more functioning brain cells will cease to listen to leftists’ ranting about the subject.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are likely to wave the whole thing aside out of disgust…which would leave the politicians a clear field for their totalitarian scheme. Beware.
Jack in Silver Spring: Yes, the “Global Warming” farce, which children and soccer moms and the local Action News weather lady now consistently parrot without presumption, is actually only symptomatic of the larger disease: the fact that the large media organizations, our educational system, and the not-to-be-underestimated conglomerates in Hollywood and the entertainment industry not only will not report this scandal, but they will actively work to suppress it. The press throughout western civilization has become the handmaiden of the Global Secular Progressive Socialist Caliphate. The spear of Freedom has been dulled to a soft nub by those selling fantasies of unicorns and rivers of milk. Meanwhile, Islam sleeps in a cave and makes no apology for reality.
Viet Nam? More like climate change’s unknown soldier. Most people I talk to have yet to hear a thing about this situation. NO-THING AT ALL. So far the MSM is doing a great job of not reporting this story. We’ll see.
Normally, scientific fraud is easily discovered because other scientists are not able to repeat the experiments and get the same data. In this case, all of the data was held in a few sets that were controlled and manipulated by a cabal.
It’s not as though we could turn back the clock and do the measurements all over again.
Orwell put it best. He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.
The ‘swampies” (AGW proponents) Have a bigger Problem.
Mother Gaia isn’t cooperating. It’s going to get colder NOT warmer. Terran heating/cooling cycles are driven by the Sun (Sol) and have a cyclic period of about 17,000 years. It has been 14,000 years since the last Ice Age. Only those with poor math skills think it will be getting warmer.
Menwhile, it’s possible that CO2 does affect the climate cycle. More research is needed. If it turns out to be accurate, then we need to pump out as muc CO2 as possible to hold off the next Ice Age as long as possible.
So a government program buying EVERYBODY a SUV and filling the tank every other day is obviously in order. Instead of a ‘chickenn in every pot’ It’s a ‘SUV in every garage’. Do you think they would buy me a Corvette instead?
Let’s make sure the Sara Palin’s and Mike Huckabee’s get their hands around this material. They have the verbal capacity and more over the stage and audience to warn against these evil minded con artists.
Revenge is a dish best served cold
Al Gore should be made to apologize to the world and give back his lying peace medallion.
He has made millions of dollars but worst of all he lied to my grandchild with his lying movie.
It has been fun reviewing all these disgusting e-mails with my 16 year old former global warming believing grandchild.
Al Gore should notice that his green stock and reputation are going to warm up on his trip to hell in a hand basket.
Hey Gore!
Its really not earths gravity that holds your fat @ss down its the global warming exposure that sucks.
Does any of this really suprise anyone? As a geophysicist with experience in numerical modeling, this was a demonstrable fraud as soon as climateaudit fed random numbers into Manns model and generated the ‘hockeystick’ in 2007. Moreover, just based on general principles, the physical systems being modelled are highly non-linear and any statements of certainty about the numerical models is silly.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. I haven’t trusted eco-disaster predictions since the seventies.
BC @ #15: Read Mr. Murrary’s blog carefully. If those purported scientists were so sure of their speculation being correct, why did they conspire to suppress dissenting voices, why did they conspire to hide data, and why did they conspire to fudge the numbers? Is lying the best the Left can do?
Maurice @ #17: Don’t disagree especially with your last point, but I think the internet is the antidote.
Climate Change is a NATURAL phenomenon and has been happening since the earth was created it is driven MAINLY by Sun Spot activity and many other minor factors of which MAN made CO2 is a very very very insignificant part as the vast MAJORITY CO2 is generated by volcanoes cow farts sea warming due to sun spots etc.
CO2 is not and never has been other than what it is an essential element in the cycle of life. More CO2 more plants – more plants more food for animals fish and men which is a GOOD thing, less CO2 less plants less food which is a BAD thing. As others have pointed out too the earths NATURAL state is usually a lot warmer than it is now when surprise surprise much more vegetation was on the planet so much so that HUGE Dinosaurs could live on it.
So as mans population grows what we need is MORE food not less which means MORE CO2 is necessary not less.
Also of course as the earth has been COOLING for the past 12 years in spite of continued RISES in man made CO2 we are obviously not putting out ENOUGH CO2 to stop us slipping in to an Ice Age . That is of course if you buy the BS that the AGW SCAMMERS have been trying to say. Anyway Green NAZI’s (AGW proponents) want us to stop producing CO2 so that means they want less industry, less capitalism, less wealth generation ( what do they sound like thats right left wing moonbat SOCIALISTS) , less plants and therefore they want STARVATION so Green NAZI’s (AGW proponents) are NOT PRO life as they say they are ANTI life and that is just ANOTHER lie they have been trying to con us with.
As Lord Monckton said ‘There IS no man made Global warming, there NEVER has been any man made Global Warming and therenever WILL be any man made Global warming’
The same sort of deception can’t be limited to this one scientific field.
An email exchange I had a couple of years back with an evolutionary biologist ran along the same lines. He stated that intelligent design advocates can’t be taken seriously because they don’t publish in credible peer review journals. What he didn’t mention is that such journal keepers man the ramparts to repel any new ideas contrary to utterly random and unguided evolution.
As a design engineer, I know better. I also know that science does not operate by enforced consensus, but arrogance, corruption and control certainly do.
Gail: I will yield to your seemingly superior scientific knowledge, but will take issue with your choice of the word “silly.” When one considers here the massive collusion of international organizations, governmental agencies, bureaucracies, states, corporations, and other charlatans (Mr. Gore and Mr. Moore, please put down the burgers and fries) to wrest power and treasure from “the folks” in the name of this well-played fairy tale, the word “criminal” seems more to the point.
It really is amazing how PJM consistently creates this controversies out of whole cloth. There’s almost nothing in this story. One group of scientists at one institution, representing one publication. It proves nothing, especially when stacked up against the amount of embarrassing revelations about the Bush administration’s suppression of the EPA’s report that global warming was a real threat:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/14/nation/na-epa-climate14
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by George W. Bush administration officials who had concluded — based on science — that the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.
The report, known as an “endangerment finding,” was done in 2007. The Bush White House refused to make it public because it opposed new government efforts to regulate the gases most scientists see as the major cause of global warming.
IAIN MURRAY YOU MUST HAVE BEEN UP IN ARMS ABOUT THIS!
Now that “climate change” has been exposed as a hoax, we have to clean up the mess of laws and regulations that were based on it.
When Barak Obama wanted to scapegoat people employed by banks, ACORN arranged mobs outside the houses of bank employees. The Tea Party protesters are more convincing as genuine protesters and better behaved. If tea party style demonstrations took place outside the homes of the conspirators and people loudly demanded to know why the supposedly respectable scientists lied about the data, the MSM would have difficulty avoiding the issue. The homes of the conspirators would be suitable venues for protests against the Cap and Tax bill and provide opportunity to express disaproval of any proposed treaty to emerge from Copenhagen.
In wartime, the truth should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies.
If the falsified data, producced by the AGW conspirators is the bodyguard of lies, then what is the truth, the real data?
Are AGW scientists truly at war with those who hold different views, to the point where they are indifferent to pursuit of the truth, which is what science is supposed to be.
Finally Moho has gotten his talking points together.
For his benefit I will make this as simple as possible. The CRU data underpins much of global warming research and other databases like Hansen’s GISS are related to it. If the CRU data has been corrupted, and there is no longer any doubt that it has been, then any modeling results based on this data are corrupted (GIGO principle) and any other data that relies on CRU for validation (almost all climate data) is also corrupted. Therefore, virtually all studies supporting the global warming hypothesis are not valid, including the one cited by the WaPo as proof for global warming. It speaks well of the Bush administration that they suppressed a study based on corrupted data. The fact that Moho would actually cite such a study shows that he has subnormal intelligence.
AGW, as a religion, practiced by the modern urban liberal is essentially this: an atavistic reversion to animism in the absence of the anthropomorphic deity.
This is their religion, and they will sacrifice you to appease their god.
“data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them.”(1106338806)”
I wonder if they got the “outsiders” permission to manipulate and “fix” their data?
If what the hacked data suggest is true and even modern “scientists” can wilfully abuse available data and subvert contrary views because of ideology, one must be horrified by the prospect of how much easier it is to manipulate discourse in so called social sciences, including politics, economics, history – you name it. One often reads about important scientific discoveries and developments which were, at first, vehemently disputed, belittled and dismissed by the scientific establishment of the day. One would have hoped that modern scientists are better steeped in ethics, the more so because scientific data and objective observations are difficult to suppress for ever; one would also want to think that similar ethical standards are incorporated to social sciences. One would want to think that ideological concerns are no longer a factor which influences the observations and explanations of phenomena like, to give a simple example, planetary movements, regardless of how “unfit” those phenomena may by to sustaining a particular ideological model. If we still live in times like those when for the sake of religious dogma scientific objectivity had to be sacrificed – purportedly for “greater good” – just imagine how easy it is to keep and maintain “purity” of thoughts suitable to the views of a ruling elite when it comes to lessons of history, economics, politics, sociology, etc. I guess ethical standards are only as good as the morality of the prevailing ideologies. How sad.
There’s almost nothing in this story. One group of scientists at one institution, representing one publication.
Plans to delete data rather than turn it over? Altering data sets described as a “trick”? Getting editors of scientific journals pushed out because they were publishing papers on both sides of the controversy? Complaining that their own data sets were not producing the needed warming trend? If this is “almost nothing,” I shudder to think what it would take to make Moho consider this a serious problem.
Moho, so you trust the EPA. Shake the tree and see what falls out. You’ll find a rotten bunch of fruit. “Based on Science”, moho quotes. The same science that the CRU uses? – freaking Statists
Everyone of these “scientists” should be banned from federal funds … forever.
Thank you Iain Murray and other voices of sanity.
Except for the conspiracy aspects of the contents of FOIA2009.zip, exactly why was all this stuff secret in the first place ?
Likewise, if the part of the theory that says this was put together as part of the review to Steve McIntyre’s FOIA request, exactly what contained with FOIA2009.zip, aside from the embarrassing conspiracy perpetrated by CRU employees, were the CRU officials trying to protect by denying the request.
Finally, the legal department of CRU found nothing strange reading this material that obviously reveals many unethical, if not illegal, acts by CRU employees ?
Frankly, the best course for the CRU and the University of East Anglia is to announce that a ongoing probe had been started on Nov. 12, 2009 into the actions of various employees of the CRU, from material that came to light because of a FOIA request.
What I don’t understand is how all the pro-warming people believe they are allowed to overlook obvious irrefutable facts. They pack their “science” with exagerated numbers and overlook huge events that contradict their theories.
Mt.Pinatubo in the Phillipines erupted in the early 1990′s. This volcano emitted carbon dioxide. At the time of the eruption the vulcanologists said the volcano put out more carbon dioxide the first day than man had been able to make since we learned to make fire. It erupted off and on for the next 10 years.
Global warming “science” is not science if obvious data is omitted. Until all the data is entered into the formula it is just a manipulated political ploy.
Mans contribution to temperature of the earth is probably less than .0001%. The amount of heat the earth gets from the sun every hour exceeds all the heat man has produced with fire and burning of fossil fuels. The output of the sun varies in a series of cycles. The ecology cult needs to get a grip on reality.
‘They’re calling it “Climategate.”’
A black mark on East Anglia, but hardly in the same ballpark as Cheney hand-editing science reports.
Hey blame it on Bush!
Nice to know that all of the hot air is coming out of Al Gores butt.
The wonderful science csar is going to have to step down because his name keeps popping up with manipulators of the data.
Lies will continue to be exposed by the Truth. Sorry liars there is no place to hide.
Delete delete delete hurry delete delete delete.
Good luck with that!
I realize the emails are damning and easy to read, but the truth is that the real treasure trove here is in the developer’s notes, comments, and actual software. HARRY_READ_ME.TXT in particular shows that they were just trying things, and if it looked “right” they went with it. No formal software development processes, no formal validation of the software at all! If you wrote this software for a medical device the FDA would close your company.
If we are going to make political decisions based on the results of some software calculation, that software and data NEED to be open sourced and examined critically by an Army of Davids.
Hi MOHO here is that question which all the Green NAZI’s AGW SCAMMERS hate (not that I think you are one you are just a Mohammedan with low level intelligence trying continually to disrupt threads with ad hominem attacks and BS) . Anyway be a good boy and try and answer the question without diversion without ad hominem just a simple yes or no will suffice.
Is CO2 a POLLUTANT?
To Jack in Silver Spring: For one thing, the “Competitive Enterprise Institute” is a BS organization when it comes to the topic of global warming. Another thing is that scientists are human, and they can only take so much malicious rubbish like this and this.
As I said, it wasn’t the scientists who made this into such a bizarre political attack on science, which it is, just as much as trying to give creationism equal weight to evolution in classrooms.
I want to thank BC and moho for counter-attacking in full partisan mode. The more you look like people in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome the less you look like rational objective scientists that could sway Independents to your way of thinking. Too bad you have no defense other than “it’s all Bush’s fault.”
You lose, America wins.
Lotta stuff going on here, egos, need to be “on the team” doing “good” work, “saving mankind” from his own excesses. But at the end of the day it was all that nice grant money from the taxpayers that turned these guys into lying no-goods.
I like to call it an Inconvenient Global Warming Scandal.
I have no experience with climatology, but I work as an engineer designing aircraft and spacecraft electronics and I have done extensive computer simulations in the past. I know that it can be extremely difficult to accurately model the behavior of complex
electronic systems for which repeatable tests can be conducted.
World climate is a nonlinear feedback system determined by multiple factors which are poorly understood and cannot be easily replicated. Therefore until the researchers release their data and methods for all to see I will continue to remains skeptical.
Obviously, all of this “ClimateGate” stuff will be ignored by the White House …
BC and moho:
Who are the “deniers” now?
Tdivina: in your effort to make this as simple as possible, you based your entire argument on a questionable assumption:
If the CRU data has been corrupted, and there is no longer any doubt that it has been
Is there really no doubt? Or is it rather that there is actually no proof that its been corrupted, simply supposition? It seems like the latter, unless you can prove otherwise.
I’m sure that in general, you wouldn’t do something this stupid, since it took all of thirty seconds to take this card out of your pyramid, and destroy your entire argument. Oh well, take a chance on formulating a more complex argument that may hold up to scrutiny, I’m sure that this one fell apart solely due to your cavalier attempt to simplify your argument for my benefit. I’ll look past the obvious implications; that is, that you are a bit of a doosh.
“Menwhile, it’s possible that CO2 does affect the climate cycle. More research is needed. If it turns out to be accurate, then we need to pump out as muc CO2 as possible to hold off the next Ice Age as long as possible.”
LOL. No kidding.
Climate changes all the time – what part of this do the AGW alarmists not understand.
The report, known as an “endangerment finding,” was done in 2007. The Bush White House refused to make it public because it opposed new government efforts to regulate the gases most scientists see as the major cause of global warming.
moho, Bush was playing politics with the study; he’s a politician. The CRU people were also playing politics but they’re not politicians. Or at least, they’re not supposed to be.
We would not have caught planet fever if more of us understood science, or at least if fewer of us had failed to receive any benefit from what passes for science classes in today’s public educational institutions. The whole “scientific consensus” illusion would never have taken hold if there was not a critical mass of people willing and ready to assume that science goes by consensus, driven by desire for social harmony or a vulnerability to peer pressure, whichever comes first… No challenge, no science! It was true in the days of Galileo, and it would still be true today if we had managed to keep science alive.
The whole anthropogenic “reasoning” was never the product of science, but rather the symptom of exploitation of ignorance by political “leadership”. If we were living in a “scientific age”, as the music goes, nobody would get away with using the word “debate” while practicing orchestrated propaganda. If you teach critical thinking to children, they take to it. If you don’t, very few of them will re-create it out of thin air by themselves. We should recognize that the planet fever hysteria is a sign of decline of the western culture. It can still be saved if we apply ourselves to the task, but that requires teaching of what made the western world great, and why we need to keep it going if we are to enjoy its benefits in the future.
Here is my proposal for a thought experiment, if you are so inclined: What would have happened if the western world did not create science in the last four and half centuries or so? Would not we be dying younger, living in precarious conditions, and converted to Islam, already?
46. BC:
AGW is about as credible as creationism. And we’ll be getting to buy indulgences soon (cap and tax) to pay for our imaginary sins against the imaginary god of the heavens.
As the author said, this won’t change any true AGW believer’s mind. Their reponses here would be laughable if they weren’t so sad. I can just see them running around their computers with their hands over their eyes and shouting “nanananan” so they won’t have to see or hear.
At the time of the eruption the vulcanologists said the volcano put out more carbon dioxide the first day than man had been able to make since we learned to make fire.
Uh, no. I did some checking on this some years back. While large volcanic eruptions do make a big contribution, it is still a fraction of anthropogenic contributions.
Waiting for Al to return his Nobel …
Waiting …
Waiting …
I shudder to think what it would take to make Moho consider this a serious problem.
No need to shudder. Just look at the article that I linked to. Or doesn’t it bother you that your own President suppressed the data of his own agency because it didn’t comport with political necessity?
BC,
they’re not frustrated with the way their work is ‘bounced around politically’, they’re frustrated that their pre-ordained conclusions are CHALLENGED and they are UNABLE TO SUPPORT their pre ordained conclusions with the data and the formulae at hand…
they’re CHEATING the numbers and concealing it, and attempting to scrub the playing field clear of rational opponents.
It’s ugly, and so is your defense of it.
I would certainly be nice if the RICCO conspiracy laws could be invoked and Rep. Waxman and a few others investigated based on Cap and Trade legislation. But the chances of that happening is slim and next to none.
This is not a conspiracy theory based on way-out speculation.
If these emails are genuine then it is a verified conspiracy fact, explicitly and contemporaneously described by the conspirators themselves.
Moho:
There is ample evidence in the E-mails and the Computer code to demonstrate that the data is corrupted. Furthermore, the underlying data has been deleted and there is no way to replicate the data series used in CRU-based climate modeling. A fundamental element of scientific research is reproducibility. CRU data can not be reproduced by third parties. Therefore, it is not valid data.
If you knew something about science you wouldn’t even try to compete in this forum of ideas. You and the other trolls don’t know how much of a self-parody you are. We talk science and you engage in the same Alinskyite tactics exhibited in the CRU E-mails. It’s not about science, which is now settled in favor of the skeptics, it’s about the new Fascism and its supporters.
You need a shirt and a symbol. I propose white with a black armband of the Carbon atom. All you need to get down is a salute.
The entire claim that there is any climate change as a result of human activity, or that there is any dangerous climate change at all is a disgraceful hoax. It is politics turned religion. In no way shape or form is it science. Anyone with real scientific credentials advancing these arguments has been corrupted. One does not need a background in science to know that present global climate warming/cooling/change proponents are frauds.
WEll – you can bet good money GE, and hence, NBC, CNBC and MSNBC will not be covering a single solitary byte of this scandal.
Does anybody know the amount of money GE stands to lose in government contracts for it’s “green” energy product line? They appeared as if they were essentially promised this government grant bonanza in exchange for supporting Obama’s campaign.
We’re talking many billions of taxpayer dollars. MANY billions. These emails put the agenda fueling that political deal at risk.
And hence, NBC network news is now GE-owned National Barack Channel News and is no longer a journalistic outlet.
Moho:
There is ample evidence in the E-mails and the Computer code to demonstrate that the data is corrupted. Furthermore, the underlying data has been deleted and there is no way to replicate the data series used in CRU-based climate modeling. A fundamental element of scientific research is reproducibility. CRU data can not be reproduced by third parties. Therefore, it is not valid data.
If you knew something about science you wouldn’t even try to compete in this forum of ideas. You and the other trolls don’t know how much of a self-parody you are. We talk science and you engage in the same Alinskyite tactics exhibited in the CRU E-mails. It’s not about science, which is now settled in favor of the skeptics, it’s about the new Fascism and its supporters.
You need a shirt and a symbol. I propose white with a black armband of the Carbon atom. All you need to get down is a salute.
A postscript: The supressed EPA report is based on the corrupt data. It should have been published
don’t expect this bullsh!t to stop. these people have no morals so don’t think that they will find honesty anytime soon.
they are lying deceitful people (not unlike the trolls) and they will be lying deceitful people tomorrow.
I still see every nature show and documentary and news program adding “global warming” in anything remotely related to most anything.
where are the apologies to those slander for trying to speak the truth?
THAT IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION …I know these scumbags will not do the correct thing. isn’t that right trolls !
Let’s see. The data don’t fit the theory, so we alter the data to fit the theory, and try to destroy anyone who’s data matches our actual data, but not our belief nor the bogus data we publish. That’s science, as frauds like Briffa and Mann practice it.
He’s not Mike any more. He’s “Piltdown” Mann.
These hypocritical so-called “Scientists” and their co-conspiratorial “Journalist” INO, enablers should be very very ashamed to call themselves scientists and journalists.
Moho: ‘Or doesn’t it bother you that your own President suppressed the data of his own agency…’ Or: ‘What my guys did isn’t that bad because what somebody on your side did was worser’? Do you have anything to offer aside from tu quoque?
ommitted the not should read should have not been published
“The report, known as an “endangerment finding,” was done in 2007″…
And this report was based on scientific data from…..these same bozo’s who are now shown to have modified their data wholesale in order to push an agenda.
Garbage in, garbage out
The difference between these people and Moho is that Moho weighs 400 lbs.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA
Good work. This is one of the best reports on “climategate” I’ve seen so far.
I started going through the emails in spare time, and only had to review the first 30 or so to see that a lot of the climate “science” crowd are behaving more like slimy politicians than scientists. One email discussed commitment to “the cause”, one gave a detailed scheme to roll out various reports to get the most publicity (the author of this one even said he knew it sounded too “cloak and dagger”), and a lot were focused on how to get models and data to match up and get the results they wanted. Even if no fraud is involved, they appear to be guilty of *staggering* confirmation bias in the way they look at the data.
No, it is NOT too much to say that there is no warming trend. These data are manufactured, they are fabricated and we know which way the actors wanted them skewed; towards warming. We presume honesty and truth because we assume good faith. When someone is a proven liar, a fraud, a conspiracist, we quite rightly presume the opposite. These people and organizations are liars therefore whatever they say is presumptively a lie until further notice. That is before we even address the cooling trend of the last decade. Global Warming is a lie. Global Cooling is a fact. Far from it being too soon to say, it is long, long overdue.
“This could prove to be climate science’s Vietnam.”
I certainly hope so, but somehow I doubt it. The media will just ignore it, downplay it, spin it -and the hysterical march of AGW pseudoscience will continue unabated. Facts don’t mean anything to true believers, the more they are exposed as lying and conniving, the more dogmatic and insistent and vocal they become. That’s how it goes with true believers.
Bless you Moho! I had begun to despair that no trolls would engage in this conversation! Thankfully, you have restored the norm with your silly, BDS-based rhetoric.
What WOULD we do without you?
moho,
The description of how the software was put together to produce the data (for 4AR?) and what the input data was like, complete with the necessary massaging of the input data, arbitrary changes, poor processes and the like would, if true, constitute exactly what you ask for: proof (well, strong evidence; formal proof does not exist outside of formal systems like math)that the CRU data is corrupted, in the sense that the input data no longer mirrors the original observed data, and that the process of converting the input data to the final data for the reports was itself arbitrary and ad hoc, and apparently manipulated to produce a desired result.
Since the CRU has admitted (against its own interest) that the information is genuine, it is only possible to maintain intellectual honesty by concluding that the CRU has corrupted its data to show a pre-determined conclusion.
This is particularly troubling because the CRU data is the basis or a basis for the vast majority of widely-cited literature on climate change issues. Meaning that everything we thought we knew about climate variation has to be reevaluated from scratch with original measurements and well-documented processes if we are to base any decisions on it.
Why should it? After all, the clear-cut evidence of data manipulation and suppression, coupled with explicitly illegal activity, that these leaked emails demonstrate doesn’t seem to bother you at all.
Goose…meet gander
I would not be surprised to soon read about the filing of lawsuits accusing the senders of some of these emails of libel.
Any English barristers reading these emails?
This is only one battle in the much longer war of subjective versus objective reality. It took centuries to prove that man was not the center of the universe, the earth was not flat, and sarcificing virgins did not appease the gods.
Science especially physics were to represent the quest for truth. Scientific laws were to sustainable throughout the universe. Then some wiseacre invented political science, an oxymoron, with roots in the dark ages.
68. Samson: “don’t expect this bullsh!t to stop. these people have no morals …. they are lying deceitful ….I know these scumbags will not do the correct thing….”
It’s fun to see an a-hole get apoplectic in print. It happens when they’re cornered and have run out of counter-arguments. It happens a lot in PJM.
The trolls are not here to debate but to function as noise. Mock them but do not engage them otherwise. As far as momo the green mohammedan and company go, to quote The Ramones:
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat with a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat with a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh yeah,uh-oh
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.
What can you do?
What can you do?
With a brat like that always on your back
What can you lose?
What can you do?
What can you do?
With a brat like that always on your back
What can you lose?
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.
Yeah
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat with a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat with a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.
What can you do?
What can you do?
With a brat like that always on your back
What can you lose?
What can you do?
What can you do?
With a brat like that always on your back
What can you lose?
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh.
Yeah
How absolutely predictable that the Mohammedan Troll MOHO woud run away from the question of wether CO2 is a POLLUTANT or not. He knows that if he says YES he will be labeled as a moron and if he says NO he will still be labeled as a moron so he is in a fix as the AGW SCAM only works if you accept the first ILLOGICALITY and that is that CO2 is a POLLUTANT and BAD.
# 71 RNB dont be surprised at MOHO’s Tu quoque he is a MOHAMMEDAN and Mohammedans and LOGIC are complete strangers.
It’s nice to get confirmation that if something seems crazy, it probably is crazy. The AGW thing seemed crazy from the start, especially for those of us old enough to remember ‘global cooling’ in the ’70′s.
What seems crazy now is the motivations of all these leftists. OK, there are BIG piles of money involved, ego/reputations, power. But those don’t apply to the useful idiot supporters. Are they really such saps as to buy into all that goody-2-shoes stuff, the unicorns and brotherhood of man and save-the-planet? Are they really such sheep as to base political decisions on adolescent in-crowd thinking? I guess so.
While I am not a scientist, but have studied science. When the statement “settled science” was issued. I knew it was BS, because there is no such thing as settled science. Someone, who is curious will always look into settled science. If it cannot be reproduced chances are it is fake. I am in the process of filing a lawsuit against Al Gore for his part of this as he violated the law when he knew what was in his movie was a lie.
It’s just amazing that Saul Alinsky tactics have found their way into science. WTF??
The point isn’t that it is or isn’t warming. The point is whether it’s mostly natural, and has happened in the past to no great concern. That’s the point. These bastards abused politics in order to distort scientific results in line with their hyper-chicken-little assessments.
Lets get this in front of a Judge and Jury quick. There is certainly enough evidence in these missives to bring charges of fraud and endangerment to the financial well being of the whole world. We have the names, we have the evidence, lets get this thing going. Full disclosure in a court of law, sounds good to me.
@moho: “Is there really no doubt? Or is it rather that there is actually no proof that its been corrupted, simply supposition? It seems like the latter, unless you can prove otherwise.”
Har har har, now Moho finds himself in exactly the same position as the Rathergate bitter-enders. “It’s never been proven wrong.” Pathetic, unscientific hand-waving that shouldn’t fool any sensible high-schooler.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the burden of proof is on those making the claims. This is something the AGW cultists have manifestly failed to do, as the CRU documents show. Google for HARRY_READ_ME.txt, and then tell me the data coming out of the CRU proves anything but the venality and stupidity and fascist jackbootery of the global warming community.
Sorry moho. This is the end of the line for you cultist whackos. Nobody is ever going to take this kind of alarmism seriously again, much less agree to hand over gobs of money and our treasured liberties to the UN global governance poltroons.
What a beautiful delicious feeling it is, to see such evil scum laid so low by their own actions.
86. Pragmatist: “# 71 RNB dont be surprised at MOHO’s Tu quoque he is a MOHAMMEDAN and Mohammedans and LOGIC are complete strangers.”
You guys at PJM sure are right. It’s just too hard to tell if something is hate speech.
“Lets get this in front of a Judge and Jury quick. There is certainly enough evidence in these missives to bring charges of fraud and endangerment to the financial well being of the whole world. We have the names, we have the evidence, lets get this thing going. Full disclosure in a court of law, sounds good to me.”
Damn straight. Full-bore Alinskyite lawfare, with Gore and Soros named as co-conspirators. Crush everyone involved with qui tam False Claims act lawsuits and RICO actions. The skeptical scientists whose careers were derailed by these scum have a slam-dunk defamation case, too.
But never mind the civil courts. These are criminal matters. These people were conspiring to undermine the sovereignty and liberty of the United States of America. Personally I think they are all traitors and should be dealt with as such.
Oh booblio!
“I don’t like you people.” says momo the moho.
Scroo yoooo clones and yer hates peach.
This system of mafia has been used for the last two centuries by the nihilists in general, and by the communists in particular, first to infiltrate and then to conquer schools, universities, media.
First they play the victim and they force their own entry in the system, once inside they exclude every dissent.
Our universities are the main example of this.
These little rats just thought to extend the commie mafia system to science.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
This Al Gore’s ‘Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain’ moment.
http://joken-g3.blogspot.com/2009/11/pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind.html
“Government, academia, science & the media: The four corners of deceit.”
(radio show host whose name shall not be mentioned
)
Another good exposé of Climategate, covering many of the same points
(It was pretty funny when the Catholic Church formally apologized to Galileo for the heliocentric thing, in the late 20th century, about 400 years too late)
Dave @41, check your sources on the Mt Pinatubo CO2 emission- http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php shows that CO2 is as much as 5 times the amount of SO2, but not thousands- and Pinatubo only emitted about 20E6 tons of SO2, implying about 1E8 tons of CO2.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide,
“It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity.”
Human activity releases about 5E9 tons/ year, so the claim that Pinatubo released “more carbon dioxide the first day than man had been able to make since we learned to make fire” does not hold water.
The CRU people are busy hanging themselves, don’t step on the rope.
# 93 biblio44 well lets just see MOHO is a Mohammedan CHECK he himself admits it. MOHO Trolls on here posting ad hominem attacks and tu quoque constantly both of which are logical fallacies CHECK its there right in front of you. Islam and its holy book the Koran too is full of contradictions and logical fallacies CHECK read it if you have any doubts. So WHERE is the Hate Speech Oh I see the TRUTH is hate speech to moonbats like you CHECK LOL
However, Hansen – the leading US cheerleader for AGW did say that it would provide a good test for the climate models. It did – they failed it.
So…when are Mann, et al, going to be charged with the appropriate crimes and do the perp walk?
Just off the top of my head there’s tax evasion and fraud, and consiracy to committ taz evasion and fraud, among other crimes. No accusations needed. They’ve admitted that the emails and documents are real. Those emails and documents offer open admissions of criminal activity…in their own words. iow, They’ve already confessed!
Hell, if I’d done anything *like* what they’ve admitted to, I’d be sitting in a jail cell right now!!! So would you.
BC writes:
“The reaction to the emails by the right wing shows *exactly* why climate researchers have gotten fed up dealing with conservatives, petroleum industry people, clueless politicians and a corporate news media unable to explain anything more complicated than a traffic report. As I’ve pointed out to slack jawed non-comprehension, the memos only show climate scientists getting increasing frustrated with the way their work has been distorted and bounced around politically. They had nothing to do with creating the politics of climatology, but have had to constantly deal with it, especially in regards to influential American morons like this guy.”
I challenge you, BC. To make the challenge a really good one, let’s put aside all talk about scandal. I do not need it to show you that you really have nothing to say.
Climate scientists have not produced a concise, simple statement of their AGW theory that the ordinary PhD among us can understand and use for prediction. You cannot do it because there is no such theory; rather, there is only a loose fabric of hypotheses that have not come together. The science is inadequate to the understanding of the potential consumers, not vice-versa.
Your response to my challenge is totally predictable. You will call me ignorant and uneducable. But I do not believe that AGW theory, if it existed, would be as complicated as Einstein’s equations, or Newton’s equations, or even Galileo’s equations. What we want is a concise, simple statement of AGW theory just as we have concise simple statements of Einstein, Newton, and Galileo. You cannot produce it because it does not exist.
I am confident in my claims because the famous emails show that no work has been done on theory for ten years or more. All those people have been doing is massaging old data and applying for grants.
ab @ #35 – I can’t speak to the other social sciences, but economists typically use publicly available data which can be checked and tested by anyone. Hence, what economists say can be subject to serious checking by other economists. That is unlike the climate data from HADCRU that are kept under lock key except for the believers.
BC @ #46 – I’ve never read anything from the CEI about global warming (that I can recall) or any of the other references you linked. I have read Lord Monckton’s work, and I have plowed through his equations to try and understand them. I am also familiar with Stephen McIntyre’s work and to a lesser extent, Richard Lindzen. I have also looked at the temperature data myself. It doesn’t take a genius to see there is something wrong with the AGW hypothesis. For one, the past has had periods as warm or warmer than the 20th century. Moreover, the decadals spans of increasing CO2 levels since the 1860s in periods when temperatures were declining (and has occurred since 1998) should raise serious questions about the validity of they AGW hypotheis. being forward. In the end, the conclusions I have expressed on PJM are my own however, albeit influenced by some of the names mentioned.
I went to a place (http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=052019;p=3&r=nfx) where Global Warming is believed without question to see what they think of the subject. Not a word, and they are still screaming the end of the world is already here. I don’t know if they realize the scam or would think its a bunch of conservative lies.
The cat is out of the bag. Sure, there will be denial, misdirection, equivocation, and excuse but the basic dishonesty and fraud of a large portion of the climatological community is now out in the open and with it the exposure of self-serving manipulation in both public and private sectors. The MSM may avoid the topic, BC and Moho will continue to beclown themselves, and politicians will continue to ignorantly proceed (there is always a time lag)to destroy world economies. But slowly and inevitably things will change. It is now apparent that AGW was a distortion at best and a complete lie at worst. The details will continue to emerge, more and more people will realize they were duped, and ultimately the world will realize that the sky is not really falling. The world’s self-important “betters” will be forced to cast about for a new fraudulent disaster and lie to enslave the masses. They will find one somewhere, of course, and the cycle will continue. It will give BC something to defend.
So where are the backup tapes?
Requiring “transparency” in all published scientific work –archiving accessible base data with caveats; describing methodology in meticulous detail; revealing any and all interpretive assumptions, stating error-ranges, reviewing alternative outcomes– is key to replicating results.
Because by definition there are no experiments, “Climate science” is a statistical exercise akin to botanical classification. “Replication” in this field is critically amenable to manipulation, because no physical phenomena as such can be induced. The consequences are what we have seen: A sneaking coterie of true-believers, expert in willful obfuscation, pathological liars bent on deriving spurious, self-serving outcomes at any cost, smear opponents, blight careers, ensure that every honest avenue to disputing their hyper-fraudulent results is blocked.
Given that their root objective is, without exaggeration, the Luddite sociopathic destruction of Western industrial civilization, indictments for “human rights violation” should overarch all else.
Next up, RICO court action on the AGW mafia members based on at least ten years of scamming for public money. This could involve action at both the US federal level and court action by various American States. Yippie Ky Yo cowboy, there are some Bobbies, US Federal Marshals, and Texas Rangers wanting to talk to you :>
I’ve done and reviewed a lot of computer simulation. This —
“No formal software development processes, no formal validation of the software at all!”
plus things as mentioned in comment #49 is why, from the beginning, I was very skeptical of AGW. One hard lesson I have learned is that even very ethical and diligent people doing simulation can bias the results.
Given that the AGW researchers would not share their data, let others examine their simulation code, and would demonize those who disagreed (deniers!..pawns of the oil interests! etc.), you didn’t need to know beans about climatology to know that their work was likely crap.
It boggles my mind that anyone who calls himself a scientist can be against peer review by hostile or skeptical reviewers, and against sharing data so that others can recreate your results. Certainly people get attached to their hypothesis but they can’t just throw out the scientific method. Might as well throw out all progress then. These aren’t scientists they are priests of a religion.
How many times have we heard priests say “we can’t translate our book into your language, you will not understand, you need us to interpret the gods’ wills. Trust us. Anyone who disagrees with us is an apostate. Why do you ask so many questions you must have faith or be excommunicated!”
Of course I’ve read scientists who don’t believe in String Theory are treated much the same as AGW skeptics. that is bad as far as the progress and knowledge of our universe goes, but at least they aren’t asking us to spend trillions and more to support them.
To Theo Goodwin: knock yourself out.
Main stream media’s reaction to Climategate – Crickets.
Science be damned!
I want my Al Gore Snuggly and Al Gore Igloo for only $39.99 and 50,000 carbon credits.
This global warming is freezin’ my arse off and I can’t keep my home warm enough to grow orchids like our leetle hot-house flower sitting in the ivory White House nibbling on gourmet frou-frou foods.
# 112 BC well one things for sure BC Theo has KNOCKED YOU OUT LOL.
This does NOT mean you can http://www.DumpChrisDodd.com
Climate Warming’s Vietnam? Or Climate Warming’s/
Climate Change’s Waterloo? I would hope for the later with these small minded napoleans being on the losing side of the battle. If there is one constant in all this it is that progressives/
socialists lie like a rug, always have, always will. These fraudsters/’scientists’ are progressives/socialists first, and should not be honored with the term scientist. They should lose their tenure, be fired, and spend some time in the local hoosegow.
Al Gore: fraud
The only “science” that these pseudo-scientists know is the “scientific socialism” as theorized by Karl Marx.
Their only problem is to stop the unbelievable TAKE OFF that capitalism has allowed and IS ALLOWING worldwide.
Once China and India become fully developed countries with a large majority of middle-class population the proportions of the development could become UNBELIEVABLY great.
The commies have to stop all that.
All the countries that they conquered during the XX century were stopped dead in their development and this has greatly damaged the progress of the whole of human kind.
Now they plan to stop ALL the countries.
This is nihilism at its best, destruction for the sake of destruction.
Like their nazi brothers, commies have death in their hearts, and they mask it with ideologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Instead of climate science’s Vietnam, I prefer to think of this as AGW’s Waterloo.
This is worst than the Piltdown Hoax. Piltdown did not result is in trashing the world economy and impoverishing millions of people, as AGW theories could. However, I do not think it is a religion, as some have claimed. It is a social pseudo-scientific myth. It has many things in common with Eugenics and Lysenkoism. Both of them had the support of the official scientific community of their societies, and both of them were wrong as set forth. They were accepted and believed as obvious truth by all the ‘in’ people—‘in’ academia, ‘in’ government, ‘in’ media, ‘in’ culture, and so forth. Eugenics lost almost all credibility with the death of Hitler; Lysenkoism with the death of Stalin. Let us hope we do not have to fight and win a war with another totalitarian dictator (or wait for him to die) to avoid the deadly consequences of the AGW myth.
I work in comp sec and tracked back hackers before. I did an analysis here, on “who did it”:
http://itsteatime.net/blogs/blog4.php/2009/11/24/climategate-who-done-it
There is a reason that the “environmental scientists” of which the CRU is a large part are called watermelons.
They are green on the outside and red on the inside. For many of these it is not about science at all. It is about control, power and the removal of freedom and capitalism. Why do you think that the Transis have been so hot to trot on this? Why are all the “solutions” involved with the creation of global government agencies supported by trillions of dollars in global taxes? This is a thinly disguised bid at global domination by the oligarchy.
RE: #111 see Dr. Lee Smolin’s book “The Trouble with Physics” for chapter and verse on the pain and suffering inflicted by “the elite” on physicists that don’t conform to the String Theory gospel.
Kevin – brilliant
“Piltdown Mann” LOL that meme deserves broader exposure.
112. BC: You have just risen to the level of your own incompetence.
Calling these frauds “scientists” devalues the term down to zero.In fact, they are political hacks peddling snake oil
So I’m wondering how much climate “science” is now fruit from the poisoned tree?
wow, just wow. Finished reading through all of Asimov’s comments on the code & code comments themselves and was horrified. I have been a software engineer, project manager, and executive for over 30 years and this is fubar’d beyond belief.
This code and data is absolutely useless at this point for anything more than a forensic project. Each dataset has to be revalidated individually, named uniquely, metadata added (and verified) and tracked through a version control system. All of the code should be reviewed (all new code for a project this important should be provided for open review and walked through by experts). Unit tests should be written for each subsystem with the test results verified against scientifically accepted acceptance tests. And more.
At this point, speaking as an expert on software development, I can safely say that no papers based on this data and code can be trusted and should all be pulled from publication.
Simply amazing level of fraud and misconduct. I pity the poor guy who went in and tried to clean this up….
BC: “To Theo Goodwin: knock yourself out.”
Spencer Weart? Really? Here’s all Spencer had to say about his cronies at CRU:
“The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It’s a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.”
“How many times have we heard priests say “we can’t translate our book into your language, you will not understand, you need us to interpret the gods’ wills. Trust us. Anyone who disagrees with us is an apostate. Why do you ask so many questions you must have faith or be excommunicated!”
Umm, never, actually.
But I have heard scientists say the equivalent.
I have news for you. This science corruption goes far beyond climate. I am a physician, in cardiology, and can tell you there is absolutely no association between dietary cholesterol and the development of coronary artery diseae. In fact, the association between coronary artery disease and cholesterol level in only casual and in not associated with causation. In addition, statin drugs have almost zero effect on preventing coronary artery diesese. Now can you get that in a journal? No. That is because 40% of journal boards are paid by big pharma.
Alan C.
Smolin also points out that progress in physics has ground to a halt because of all effort put into proving String Theory which has yet to produce a single hypothesis that can be actually tested.
I live in the Pacific NW, home of the spotted owl. About 20 years ago, a big crisis was generated to stop all timber harvests on public and private lands for the purpose of protecting owl habitat. It decimated the forest products industry here. Now it has been confirmed that the owl’s diminished numbers is more due to a competitor owl than loss of habitat. The tree-huggers who brought us this economic fiasco are not humbled or embarrassed by their error. They actually seem proud of it. That exposes the fact that their real goal was not protecting the owl; it was to damage or destroy a vibrant rural economy. AGW is a global version of the spotted owl. Luckily, the hoax has been exposed before too much damage is done.
Just came across a Michelle Malkin blog about how the current “ClimateCZar,” John Holdren, is part of the HADCRU cabal. Here is the link:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/24/science-czar-john-holdren-and-climategate-perfect-together/
(Why must we call these people czars? This is not imperial Russia; its the USA.)
My whole life has been a HOAX! http://www.LIVESHOT.cc
Into court, into court, into court. Lets get this out in the open, lets find out who is right and who just might be held criminally responsible for fraud and owe huge fines and jail time.
“Lets get this in front of a Judge and Jury quick. There is certainly enough evidence in these missives to bring charges of fraud and endangerment to the financial well being of the whole world. We have the names, we have the evidence, lets get this thing going. Full disclosure in a court of law, sounds good to me.”
Sorry for my spelling but i thought the scientifc method was theory=experiment’s=data=release data =replicate experiment’s data= if same data set emerge’s theory is correct if not try again and if same bad data result theory is wrong thought that was scientific method rem cold fusion
There is no doubt that the underlying datasets are completely unreliable. The code and comments themselves prove that–forget about the emails for a moment. Furthermore, the code that interprets those datasets into research results is completely unreliable as well. Again, the code and code comments prove that as well.
We have a situation where the datasets are literally unknown as to content and validity. We have a situation where the code itself is virtually undocumented, unvalidated, and unverified because of the extreme reluctance by CRU to allow independent review of either code or datasets.
There is no way that even papers based on this crap has any validity, let alone public policy. Everyone involved with this scientific misconduct should be banned from publishing for the remainder of their lives.
In reading the Climategate e-mails something is very striking. Why would scientists, who are dedicated to the notion that the Earth’s temperature must be lowered in order to save humanity, be panicked and upset when their data shows the Earth actually cooling? To me, this alone is proof the “theory” of AGW is a means to an end to something other than saving polar bears etc. I hate polar bears by the way.
There is no doubt that the underlying datasets are completely unreliable. The code and comments themselves prove that–forget about the emails for a moment. Furthermore, the code that interprets those datasets into research results is completely unreliable as well. Again, the code and code comments prove that as well.
We have a situation where the datasets are literally unknown as to content and validity. We have a situation where the code itself is virtually undocumented, unvalidated, and unverified because of the extreme reluctance by CRU to allow independent review of either code or datasets.
There is no way that even papers based on this crap has any validity, let alone public policy. Everyone involved with this scientific misconduct should be banned from publishing for the remainder of their lives.
Scientists Caught with Pants Down on Special Climate Change Episode of Cheaters TV Show http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/scientists-advocating-man-made-global.html
“#s 29 and 60. Butt Moho say: “I shudder to think what it would take to make Moho consider this a serious problem.
No need to shudder. Just look at the article that I linked to. Or doesn’t it bother you that your own President suppressed the data of his own agency because it didn’t comport with political necessity?”
You silly Moho. The trouble with your conclusion is that what you quoted in the article you linked to defends Bush and damns you. Look:
“The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a long-suppressed report by George W. Bush administration officials who had concluded — BASED ON SCIENCE[caps by me] — that the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.”
But the Bush officials’ conclusion wasn’t “based on science”. It was based on corrupted science. A lot of us have known this for years, just as Bush must have known. No wonder he refused to sign off on it. The report was tainted by fraud, as these whistle blower’s documents make plain. Good for Bush.
To Fen and the others: Yeah, all these scientists are part of this vast conspiracy to learn about how the earth and stars work — maybe you guys should just line them all up against a wall and stone them to death, eh? You maroons.
Spencer Weart is absolutely dead on in his assessment of you looney tunes. And this piece of his about the history of the “The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect” should be required reading for any politician, reporter or pundit before any of them can write or shoot off his or her mouth on anything touching upon the topic of global warming.
This is a great day!
I can’t wait to explain this to my grandchildren: “Wait a minute Grandpa… you mean that people really believed that carbon dioxide was making the earth warmer? People believed this while the earth was actually getting colder? People were paying billions of dollars to try to stop the earth from warming – while it was cooling – by doing something that had nothing to do with either? People changed their lifestyles and entire national economies because of this? Boy it was primitive in the olden days wasn’t it?
“Citizens, hear me out!” shouted the snake oil salesman to the angry crowd about to lynch him. “I know your angry and with good cause! My partner in this enterprise…(looking to his LEFT, naturally)…my late partner I should say…THE RAT!…substituted his OWN concoction for my tried and proven formula of REAL snake oil…which I just happen to have two cases of in yonder wagon. Had he sold the ‘REAL McCOY’
your ailments would now be OVER! Only I and my highly ESTEEMED colleague Dr. Jones…sorry, I mean…ONLY I know the proper dosage for EACH ailment that besets you…”
More reputations than the climatologists are on the line. The reputation of “big science” in general is st stake. Failure by the scientific profession as a whole to publically and decisively repudiate this fraud will result in them losing credibility with the elected officials they seek funding from.
This is not a fight which can be avoided, and the fact that major political factions support & collude with this fraud won’t change the outcome. Either Big Science cleans its own house or the government side of its budget will become just another boondoggle, with funding decisions being based on political clout rather than scientific merit.
Who would take the word of a scientist about the merits of the projects he is pushing if he won’t criticize obvious scientific fraud? Why should politicians trust him not to let funds trusted to him be used for purposes unrelated to scientific merit?
And, if the scientific merit of a given project really cannot be ascertained because the experts on the subject can’t be trusted to act against fraudulent misuse of the funds, why shoulddn’t the politicians who appropriate the money do so based on the prospects that the funding will benefit their power and prospects of remaining in office?
IMO the scientific profession will fail this test, and thereby justifiably make their budgets mere political footballs.
The era of major rapid increases in scientific knowledge may be ending, with all that implies.
I remember in the early 90′s I worked for a guy who had sold computer software and hardware to the folks who were doing the climate modeling. He said the guys doing the actual number crunching told him that they were not really able to construct a meaningful model: they had no idea what values to give all of the variables, and they weren’t even sure what all the variables would be. Many things that were probably variables weren’t even subjected to measurement. They said it was like trying to make a model that predicts the path of a grain of sand in a storm. And you don’t have a figure for wind speed. Sure, you can build a model, but it is all make-believe.
Nonetheless, they were sure that their theory was correct.
Not long after that I began hearing about what some “advanced computer models” were predicting about the climate, and I was always amazed at the precision of their predictions, as if these tenth-of-a-degree adjustments represented real data tied to a tested model that could be calibrated. I am not surprised about the CRU revelations.
Now don’t YOU all be surprised by the resilience of AGW fervor. This scientific debate has gotten mixed up with people’s self identity and worldview. Never assume someone is going to shift some aspect of their identity based on evidence. Look back at the Twentieth Century and ask yourself: “Do people often hold onto a conviction in the presence of evidence which disproves the conviction?”
This is not remotely over. To many folks, the CRU dump is no more real than the Ukrainian genocide. The New York Times covered neither.
Slightly OT, but: For all of the AGW supporters promoting Green Energy in the form of windmills; has ANYONE stopped to consider what removing the ENERGY from the wind MIGHT do to affect Climate Change?
Y’know; that old “A butterfly flaps its wings …”; imagine what a hundred thousand WINDMILLS might do….
just like the Rathergate memo, they’ll claim ‘fake, made up, but accurate’
Everybody knows that Dihydrous Monoxide is a more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2. Why doesn’t the EPA try to regulate it?
Don’t you just love junk science?
“it is clear that at least one branch of climate science — paleoclimatology — has become hopelessly politicized…”
No. It appears that a group of paleoclimatologists with specific names are corrupt, and their publications should be re-examined.
Matt Brisch, I really like your No. 149: “Man-caused global warming is fake but accurate.”
Matt Brisch,
That is a good way of restating:
“He who believes in nothing, will believe in anything.”
Ian,
Hadley CRU data is the “Pentagon Papers” for the human caused global warning fraud.
The difference now is that the major American media is on the side of the power hungry, enemies list obsessed, Nixonian establishment, and not the people, this go around.
“This science corruption goes far beyond climate.”
Mmmn, yes and where is the AIDS vaccine we were supposed to get by 1985?
Ask Peter Duesberg (UC Berkeley) about grant- and prestige-driven hoaxes and suppression of dissent.
Hey Al. Do you have any comment? Al? Al, are you out there? Has anyone seen Al?
Here’s a couple of links to the files if anyones interested, since they’re already freely available on the internet.
http://uploading.com/files/a775cf5e/FOI2009.zip/
http://hotfile.com/dl/18516510/bf4104d/FOI2009.zip.html
CO2 is not a “greenhouse” gas, and Earth’s climate is beyond human control. Clean air and water, yes, of course; global temperature, no. More CO2 is better, because it makes crops grow. Warm weather extends growing seasons, increasing food production and supporting the world’s human population. That’s the Warmists’ objection: CO2 supports life and they want to “save the planet” by having us die. Just us, not them.
Gore, Jones, Mann, Obama, Hansen, and their Communist colleagues everywhere are enemies of humanity. This Global Warming nonsense, and Obama’s depraved Non-Healthcare Bill, are just different bullets in their weapon of tyranny, aimed between our eyes.
#148 Do you think if BC keeps flapping his comes that it will bring on the Mayan Apocalypse?
Something I don’t get is that the evidence for global warming isn’t locked away in numbers and statistics that can’t be felt; there are actual images of centuries old ice sheets falling off into the ocean, glaciers retreating miles, and the arctic ice cap shrinking. Do you all really believe the world is getting colder?
When scientists abandon the scientific method, can they still be considered scientists?
I think not. In becoming propagandists, they are traitors to their profession – and to all humanity.
Honestly why the heck does anyone care about this crap, no human is ever going to outlive our planets life-cycle.
There is only one thing to remember, and that is there here and the now, if you forget about that you might as well be dead.
“Dese anti Climate Change guys is unreasonable. Mebbe we should make em an offer dey can’t refuse? What, do dey think we is here for dere amusment? Dey want air, we’ll give em some air! Da bums!”
Wiretap evidence recorded over AlGoreos Candy Shop during the Climate Change Racketeering Investigation of 2009 …
That examination should include every paper that depended upon the CRU datasets, code, and CRU papers. This is huge–one of the four worldwide temperature datasets has been reliably accused of being irretrievably corrupted. Furthermore, the modeling and analysis code that mines those datasets has been implicated in that corruption.
Use of those papers, datasets and models should be embargoed until quality–as defined by both ISO IEC 9003 and proper testing–has been assured. Certainly all the IPCC reports need to be included in that embargo until the CRU papers and data has been removed and the research been re-analyzed.
It is funny that for a piece of software involved in medicine the quality assurance required by the FDA is enormously involved and expensive. All to save lives and prevent fraud. Yet for one of the most important decisions regarding our stewardship of our home, anything approaching this level of quality is absent. People can be forgiven for their suspicion of conspiracy…
That examination should include every paper that depended upon the CRU datasets, code, and CRU papers. This is huge–one of the four worldwide temperature datasets has been reliably accused of being irretrievably corrupted. Furthermore, the modeling and analysis code that mines those datasets has been implicated in that corruption.
Use of those papers, datasets and models should be embargoed until quality–as defined by both ISO IEC 9003 and proper testing–has been assured. Certainly all the IPCC reports need to be included in that embargo until the CRU papers and data has been removed and the research been re-analyzed.
It is funny that for a piece of software involved in medicine the quality assurance required by the FDA is enormously involved and expensive. All to save lives and prevent fraud. Yet for one of the most important decisions regarding our stewardship of our home, anything approaching this level of quality is absent. People can be forgiven for their suspicion of conspiracy…
No, we just are skeptical about the two propositions forwarded by advocates like Hansen, Jones, Gore, Mann, et al:
1. That the global warming was due primarily to man made generation of CO2,
2. that warming and additional CO2 is a disastrous event for the planet.
There are plenty of environmental problems we should address right now. The great pacific garbage patch comes to mind. Air pollution over our cities and water pollution come to mind as well. Wasting precious time, money, and resources on an unproven hypothesis (AGW)–which recently has been exposed as a scientific fraud in some quarters–is foolish. Let’s solve real problems–phony problems can wait.
Right at the beginning of this debate, a contributor known as BC asserted that science and scientists had become politicised. I’m hearing this message from a number of sources.
BC goes on to say that he/she believes that, out a sense of frustration, the most-listened to climate scientists abandoned the scientific method and falsified data.
15 BC – Right wingers and conservatives blaming scientists for the politics of global warming is like Bart Simpson going “I didn’t do it.”
NO! Very emphatically!
If the e-mail record is shown to be authentic, the behaviour of these so-called “scientists” is such as to warrant that they be subject to investigation by their relevant professional bodies.
If the e-mail record is shown to be authentic, the individuals concerned have not just stepped a little bit over a line.
The senior staff, at the Hadley Climate Research Unit, have not only abandoned any pretence of being scientists – they seem to have adopted the mindset of a mafiosi organisation.
Phil Jones appears to be the bloke with his cheeks stuffed with cotton wool, at least on this level
He, along with a number of other “scientists” appear to have lied and have then tried to cover up their lies. This appears to have been going on for some time.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html
“Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers
Narrator
Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature’s most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world’s most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers …”
The rest is marvelously funny. Click on the link.
@#167.
Er…the CRU has already admitted that the emails and other documents are authentic. Basically, those emails and documents are confessions to criminal behavior as well as open admissions of academic and research fraud, including the admission of fraud and conspriacy to commit fraud against various governments and organizations around the world.
Truth can be subverted, but in the end, truth will prevail because it is simple and pure and it NEVER CHANGES!
BC @ #143: Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated. I have no objection to your disagreeing with the conclusions many have drawn here about the scandal at HADCRU and assorted associates. I do object strong objections to your being disagreeable when you disagree with those commenting here. (Of course I would have say that to everyone commenting here.) As to why I strongly disagree with your point of view, please see my response @ #105 to “Meanwhile …” at Viscount Monckton’s blog here: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/viscount-monckton-on-global-warminggate-they-are-criminals-pjm-exclusive/
“However, it is clear that at least one branch of climate science — paleoclimatology — has become hopelessly politicized to the point of engaging in unethical and possibly illegal behavior.”
Not just paleo, I think. There’s Kevin Trenberth’s comment that ” “We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
This isn’t even a bad hypothesis, let alone a theory. Travesty? well said, Dr. Trenberth!
In a later email, Trenberth even seems to doubt “global warming” on the basis of recent Colorado weather: “Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather….”
Only a “denier” of course would confuse “weather” with “climate.”
Are you telling me that Al Gore lied to me??? My life is over!!
I’ve never trusted the global warming hysteria in spite of being a rather “pro-science” person in general and usually full of appreciation of what science can do for us.
What made me a skeptic on a personal level was two things really. First of all whenever people would talk about it left-wing buzzwords almost immediately came in as well and it quickly became obvious that it was a highly political deal and many of the demands tied to it seem to be just standard part of the left-wing agenda anyway (redistribution, regulation of the marketplace, Western guilt-tripping, enthusiasm for the Third World etc.).
Secondly, it turned into a rather nasty very single-minded cult-like thing. Any skepticism was shouted down and smeared yet even outrageous unscientific claims made in the name of raising awareness were condoned “in the name of the cause”. That’s not science, that’s a movement and a rather bully-like authoritarian one at that.
The combination of the two almost guaranteed that eventually they’d be wrong on something substantial – a one-track mind driven by ulterior motives is going to get in conflict with reality sooner or later.
From a science point of view, the modeling was always the key problem, both when it came to “recreating” prehistoric temperature data and predicting climate trends. Even small errors can lead to notable inaccuracies and these are models dealing with a system so complex we to this day can’t claim to 100% understand every part of it. A model dealing with the system Earth is bound to have deviations from reality in it, that’s why meteorologists usually use averages of a multitude of models and their own instincts based on experience – yet still get it wrong from time to time. As a result I always felt there was a “voodoo” element to these climate models and the way the results were presented to us as certainties in the way few meteorologists would ever dare present say the GFS or the UKMO.
I think really what we have observed since the 1960s is the rise of “advocacy science” where science is not used purely to further mankind’s knowledge but with specific political and social aims attached to it. I was told myself at college by professors that science ought to be committed to “social justice”. It’s a standard mantra.
We all know this phenomenon from the humanities and social sciences, but no doubt it moved into the “hard” sciences as well especially into areas where influencing policy is a key part of the discipline. I have myself experienced such thinking in public policy-relevant fields of science in an academic setting. No doubt these areas would be most interesting to the scientific talent also intrigued by political crusades – which in academia today usually means hard left crusades.
“In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist Michael “Mike” Mann that he has just “completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline”(0942777075). This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with the observed temperature record.”
I think one needs to be clear about what “recent years” means.
This is a 1999 e-mail and therefore does NOT mean the 10+ years of cooling we’ve SINCE 1998/9 to date. To understand what Phil was trying to hide see this on Steve McIntyre’s site:
Mike’s Nature trick
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810
Shades of Velikovsky!
More reputations than the climatologists are on the line. The reputation of “big science” in general is st stake. Failure by the scientific profession as a whole to publically and decisively repudiate this fraud will result in them losing credibility with the elected officials they seek funding from.
Exactly, Tom. The people who should be angriest about this are the scientists doing honest work – scientists who question themselves and allow others to question their work.
For years, I thought that, while the humanities departments at universities were clearly going to hell in a handbasket, at least the hard sciences were free from political agendas. How naive of me to believe that PC had not contaminated the sciences as well.
Oh, and thanks for the Iowahawk link. These days, the man never lacks for material.
You have to pity the trolls. They’re desperately clinging to their religion.
Poor benighted souls. Deniers, yes, but if you swallowed that load of codswallop, wouldn’t you be reluctant to admit to being an easy mark, a total gull and a sucker?
Like other posters I am enjoying this immensely and the lefty tree huggers are in a complete tizzy after being caught red handed making it up.
The fact is that no scientist has been able to model anthropogenic global warming. Climatologists agree that sea level and ambient air temperature are intertwined and correlate, but are silent about the fact that sea levels have remained constant over the last several thousand years, including, of course the most recent two centuries when industrial activity and the burning of fossil fuels increased dramatically.
Anthropogenic global warming is the latest attempt by the left to limit human behavior. It has achieved cult status and is the pagan left’s newest “religion”. In the twisted minds of lefties humans are a fundamentally bad actor on the planet’s stage that have to be limited and controled. We are to limit reproduction and kill children in order to protect the “god”, the non human world. Mr Obama’s science czar believes this. We are to limit human’s use of resources to protect the “god”. The silliness of this logic has been exposed by the lies of the anthropogenic global warming faithful. It is wonderful to finally see their deception exposed for all the rest of us to witness.
What a bunch of hucksters and lefty charlatans. It is just so consistent with the rest of the disproven and discredited Marxist crap they believe.
All the miseducated politicians who have bought into this garbage are exposed for their lack of scientific understanding and intellectual bankruptcy. And the President is one of the ring leaders and enablers of these fools who have bought into this “scientfic” rubbish. Once again, how perfectly consistent. It fits nicely with the rest of his vacuous beliefs about man, law, science and government.
And of course, the deniers, in and outside of the media, will try to ignore these emails.
Think of how self-righteously virtuous the leftist deniers must feel as they sort through their trash, use crappy light bulbs, and carry their organic vegetables home from the farmer’s market in a hemp sack.
“I’m saving the planet! I’m soooo superior to the conservatives, with their SUV’s and their rug-rats!”
What a warm feeling of superiority they get from that.
Gosh darn it all, you mean people want to take that away from them? Shame!
Think about that woman in England who got sterilized so as to not burden the overheated earth with any more carbon-producing brats. (Actually, that’s the one upside to this whole thing – the Gaia-worshippers stopped reproducing.)
Although as far as I can tell this behavior isn’t intentionally in place to hide and perpetuate fraud, but rather largely due to herd mentality and inertia, the same “criticize for not publishing in peer-reviewed journals” and “prevent publishing in peer-reviewed journals” dichotomy exists in many astronomical circles for dealing with those who do not parrot the status quo. Researchers who publish their findings in alternative forums (even those with good-if-not-strictly-academic reputations) are by default assumed to be kooks. I find this sadly amusing since we now know the two fields overlap (particularly regarding anything having to do with our own star), and doubly sad that once the fraud is stripped away, a lot of blind spots will likely remain. In other words, these criminals are not the only factors holding back climate science for many decades, despite our technological advancements. But I guess you have to slay your dragons as you encounter them, so let’s see the indictments returned… and ASAP, please. I’ve got the feathers ready, but do you have any idea how much CO2 I’m releasing keeping all this tar hot?
I note that a poster here believes that global warming is proven by glaciers “calving” and the supposed shrinking of the arctic ice sheet. Anecdotal observations are not science. By the way, the evidence shows the antarctic glaciers are growing. That, by it’s self, also proves nothing.
Where I come from, the word “model” in a scientific context means a simulation of one or more physical processes. From what I have seen,
including a quick look at the leaked code, in climate “science,”
model means a method to statistically manipulate data from the past in
order to be able to predict data in the future. That is, it is not a model at
all but an extrapolation. It resembles a system for beating the roulette wheel based on past spins.
The science comes down to this: if more radiation is directed towards the earth from the sun, it is eminently rational, indeed logical, to conclude that more radiation leaves the earth.
The honest science supports this conclusion.
However, the climate change alarmists refuse to accept this.
It comes down to that.
It is very simple. The goal of AGW alarmists is, and always has been, to get people to surrender first their money and then their freedom. The driving force is not science,it is greed tempered with a lust for power.
ever since human groups have had “leaders”, several facts are timeless. 1. leaders, to stay leaders, create a crisis, whereby they are the one’s who can solve the problem, save the day, and insure saftey and prosperity. 2. grateful subjects give money and loyalty, ie votes. think of all the adoring voters who are convinced they are helping save the planet.
Are not the hacker(s) who exposed this, far more worthy of an award for services to humanity than some of recent politically inspired choices for Nobel Laureate ?
No, it is NOT too much to say that there is no warming trend.
Yes, Megapotamus, it is too much to say there is no warming trend. There was been a definite warming trend over the last 400 years, since the little Ice Age. That’s how we know it was the Little Ice Age.
What we don’t know is whether it’s been faster, or gone much higher, than it would have without the contribution of CO2 from human civilizations.
One thing fairly appairent on thiese responses is that those who are true believers in AGW will never accept that they have been used. I myself am not from any scientific discipline, but I assure you I will now recive all scientific odderings with much scepticism. Warming? Heck. I live in Arizona. It’s either hot or hotter so no argument from me. I do mourn the loss of scientific credibility that will tarnish not only this scientific discipline, but many others as well. The “follow the money” seems to just about say it all.
I challenge anybody here to explain in detail what EXACTLY these emails are talking about in any of the offered “smoking gun” sections, such as “hiding the decline” or “containing the MWP”.
I wish there was global warming …it’s the cold I fear. (and trolls, they are creepy)
@131. David: – I am a physician, in cardiology, and can tell you there is absolutely no association between dietary cholesterol and the development of coronary artery diseae.
THANK YOU for that affirmation!!
Interestingly, there IS a correlation between low and/or artificially reduced cholesterol levels and aggressive behavior. See Hilbrand, et al., for info on this.
/people, please extend some sympathy for what the trolls are going through. Their religion has been proven to be based on lies. And Al Gore is their Jim Jones.
“In the meantime, all those responsible for political action on global warming should stop the process pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if nothing has happened.”
Whoever leaked all this deserves a medal.
So what will be the fall-out from the leaked East Anglia CRU files? What happens when politically connected scientists blatantly manipulate data to buttress a flawed hypothesis: that increasing CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere drive increases in global temperatures – when in fact the inverse is true. Now that the hoax has been exposed through their own research documents and communications, the narrative will become an exercise in the dissembling of culpability by the principles, to be followed by the inevitable claims of victimhood.
There should be no quarter spared in aggressively pursuing the perpetrators at every level in order to expose those who have participated in a conspiracy to enrich themselves through the manipulation of data and research. And with these leaked CRU documents providing a basis for further investigation, it would appear that some of the content developed for the United Nations IPCC TAR and AR4 reports is now hopelessly compromised.
Imagine! – We are one step away from levying a tax on the emissions of CO2 worldwide; a tax that each and every consumer will pay through the increased cost of producing everything we buy. The EPA is on the verge of rendering an endangerment finding on a gas that is an essential building block to all plant life on the globe based on what appears to be a manufactured crisis. Carbon Dioxide is a gas that is soluble in water, and one that forms the very base of the food chain in our oceans; it is a compound that each and every living mammal on the planet exhales as part of its very existence. And yet a group of scientists, who for purely self-serving and political reasons, embark on a crusade to manufacture evidence that CO2 is the hobgoblin of greenhouse gases, when in fact all life forms are inherently dependent on its existence.
How many politicians have blindly signed onto invasive and misguided regulations designed to brand CO2 emissions as causative to AGW in response to apocalyptic scenarios pushed by Special Interest and the Environmental Lobby based on the manufactured CRU research.
The selective and purely partisan consideration demonstrated by editors of peer-reviewed journals, willfully rejecting dissenting opinion in favor of sensational headlines, and the banishment of objective experts and opinions to the scientific equivalent of Botany Bay has been unforgivable.
What is the sum total of tax-payer funds on a global scale committed to a fraudulent premise based on falsified data. Do the ends justify the means? – I’m sure there are those who believe so! But is this to become the philosophy of our scientific method.
The virtue of scientific endeavor must remain paramount and therefore the entire community must be held to the highest of standards. There can be absolutely no compromise on the manipulation of data or the scientific method – and for those who breech the protocols and embark on the path of manufacturing results – justice must be swift and uncompromising. To do anything less than issue a ‘scarlet letter’ to those who would perpetrate fraud on a scale such as this would border on criminal itself.
The integrity of the Scientific Process needs to be restored and the first step requires a purging of the ranks to excise the taint; followed by the aggressive prosecution of the principles so that examples of harsh sanctions and consequences are well documented for those who might contemplate embarking down a similar path.
The UK’s daily Mail seems to sort of get it then sort of NOT.
“Although there is no hint of evidence that climate change is not real, the emails appear to show researchers MANIPULATING raw data and discussing how to dodge Freedom of Information requests.
Read more: [www.dailymail.co.uk]”
That one sentence from the article alone shows a complete disconnect from reality in the MSM they say the emails show they were ‘MANIPULATING DATA’ and avoiding disclosure but STILL in the same sentence they insist ‘CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL’ . Such cognitive dissonance is astounding in the MSM.
We KNOW Climate Change is real its a NATURAL phenomenon what is NOT real is AGW and the emails prove that is based on MANIPULATED data.
Its not his PIGMENTATION its his POLICIES
Its not because he is BLACK but because he is RED
He’s not a Muslim oh no! LOL
Wake up before its too late USA.
#128 iconoclast
In other words it’s typical academic/scientific code. I work in a related field to yours (industrial control) and yes we would never get away with this sort of crap, but scientists routinely hack together half-baked code to process their results with little thought to verification and validation. I do it too – when I want to auto-generate a list of tagnames or build a spreadsheet to calculate initial configuration parameters – but this is not production code just an input to it, and the field testing chases out any bugs introduced at the initial config stage. These guys use it the output as their final product…*shudder*
Bear in mind this is pretty much what Fortran was invented for, to allow maths/physics academics to code their own algorithms quickly and easily…now we are reaping the results.
Despite all the revelations of the SCAM Al Bee Bee Ceera ( BBC) is STILL unashamedly punting Global Warming SCARE stories. This is from the BBC site today 25/11/09
“Warming globe
The past, present and possible future of climate change ”
Here is the link to the stories with all the Graphs based on what we now know is MANIPULATED information.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8359629.stm
I think we’ve always known we were being scammed…Two sites that give a good overview of how we got here and what the scientific weaknesses of the IPCC projections.
How the IPCC took over our lives:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/climate_science_corrupted.html
Why the IPCC projections are wrong:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810
I doubt the MSM are going to dig into this at all – too much invested in AGW. So it’s up to you and McIntyre and Inhofe…
I’ll try my best to spread the facts on message boards.
The Truth Will Out, and Other Lies
“The truth will out,” along with what seems a million other terms and phrases, is credited to Will Shakespeare and, as with so many other wise Bard aphorisms, is generally true. Except when it isn’t.
We’re bombarded daily with news reports, announcements, statements many of which, based on their sheer repetition, become chiseled in our brains as absolutes when they are absolutely false.
Fortunately, usually, the truth will out, will work its way through piles of faleshoods and be exposed for what it is.
Two examples follow:
The Global Warming Farce, aka The Big Lie: A prime instance of truth outed is the long-running charade that is anthropomorphic/anthropogenic climate change.
Those big words, simply a high fallutin’ multisyllabic way of saying mankind did it, is a baldfaced lie which is finally getting exposed.
We have been warned and lectured that man is responsible for global warming/cooling/climate changing for years now and that we had better stop being poor stewards of the planet before said planet eats us up and spits us out.
Environmental radicals . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1343)
Imagine if there had been something analagous in the US. Maybe CIA emails asking others to delete prior emails on WMD? Or someone at Bank of America saying to delete all of the Merrill Lynch docs? It would be front page news and would start calls for resignations, imprisonment, etc.
Simply amazing.
It is a pity that all this reporting misses the most important point. You control scientists through grants. It may be difficult to research, but i am sure that in the field you could not get a grant unless you proclaimed your belief in global warming.
To the shrinking numbers of AGW believers:
Ok, let’s pretend the emails are out of context and don’t prove anything.
Further, let’s pretend that the programmer’s choice of words like ‘fudge factors’ and ‘artificial data’ are just unfortunate and refer to necessary nomalization of data to make them comparable for analysis.
Look at the mess the data is in as exposed by the progammers comments. He can’t figure out what many of the data files are, what data station is what, how to correct the routines. Yet when this group of scientists publish anything, they claim their analysis is correct down to the tenth of a degree on a global basis for hundreds of years.
Do you REALLY think they can get that type of resolution from the mess the programmer is describing?
Do you REALLY not think that the programmer has told these guys ‘hey, I’m doing the best I can, but these files are a mess.’?
If these scientists are that oblivious to the state of their data, then they are too stupid to do the analysis of it. If they realize that their data is a mess, then they are deliberately misleading the science community with their confidence levels.
Considering that they have tried to hide their data, I think we can guess the right answer.
Wake up.
The three things you must absolutely know about Climategate:
1. Those emails are impossible to follow. We’ll take them out of context and tell you what they mean.
2. Caution of any kind is always unfounded. Smoking may cause lung cancer, but there’s no hard evidence of that. Certainly, don’t quit smoking, because its not certain that the lung cancer smokers get is related to smoking.
3. Right wing fabulists will take advantage of anything to make their points. It may seem inhuman, but they are actually invaders from Dimension X, where love is hate, and lying is sincerity.
Did we forget that scientists are human? Did we forget they’re just as susceptible to “greed” as anyone else? There are billions of dollars at stake, and more importantly, many scientists have staked their careers and professional credibility on the AGW theory. It’s no surprise that some of them (very influential people too) have apparently cooked recent data that undercut their theories. And no, this event will make no difference to AGW fanatics for whom environmentalism is a religion; no more than proven data on evolution convinces religious fundamentalists. But that’s OK. In every group there are a few spittle-spewing wingnuts. The important thing is that the tide is turning on this massive AGW hoax and that any economy-gutting legislation is MUCH less likely to pass. Sooooo, on to the next hoax. The Left will have to find something else to fear-monger about; maybe they can convince us that Palin is really a lizard from the xenon galaxy (like in the TV series “V”).
This is the kind of problem a specialist can’t solve. Scientific fiefdoms won’t produce an answer, because they always overlook what is not in their domain (and are absolutely dismissive) For every assertion made a counter assertion is made on the same ‘evidence’. (hence the cherrypicking)
The inconvenient truth will be revealed when proprietary computer models are finally disclosed. They’ll kick and scream, because of the competitive process for dollars.
The laymen will roll their eyes. And we’ll finally realize we have a pollution problem, but it’s not CO2, at least not now.
how much co2 was released during WWII shouldnt it have been about 120F everywhere 1946 on according to this theory
It aint just the paleocliamtologists! I have debated IPCC climatlogists who are just as unethical and dishonest. This runs very deep, and wide.
If anyone here is old enough, as I am to remember the stories from grandparents of the dire headlines predicting a coming ice age which would destroy life on earth in the 1920′s then as a teenager seeing the headlines in the 1950′s warning that the earth was going to expire because of global warming. Then in the 70′s scientists were again predicting another ice age, they would realize that climate changes are CYCLIC and last from 20-30 years. The sun goes through a 100 yr cycle that just started where solar activity and sun spots are fewer than usual, thus making the cooling cycle we are in now much cooler, the cooling cycle started about 20 years ago and will last about 15-20 more years. Climate change, just like health care has never been about anything but CONTROL of the nations people, wealth and resources.
OOPs typo above…the cooling cycle we are in now started 10 yrs ago not 20……
for moho,
you keep bringing up that bush hid the data from an epa release. shouldn’t you be thanking him for that. since after all the epa and the un were getting there data to make those suggestions based almost solely on the information provided by the AGW scientists. since they have the only real data collection they could say whatever they wanted. i just hope america extradites the ones who got grant money from the DOAA. especially weith emails saying they need to cover up trips they didnt go on and expenses that didnt go towards equipment.
A quadruple dog dare to any denier: What new *science* did we learn from these emails?
The answer is nothing. The “hidden” data was published and cited. It was not included in the graph because it is considered to be spurious.
Clearly, there are some problems with FOI, but this cuts both ways. The deniers are clearly abusing the system, griefing anyone they don’t like with spam requests. FOI should be respected, but also limited to reasonable extent.
Also, the “greed” argument is 100% bunk. Scientists work on a number of things all the time. If one doesn’t work, we focus on one of the others. There is precisely zero impact on our pay-checks. The budgets these guys had for their labs, about $1,000,000 per year, are very typical. Note that scientists of their caliber probably make a little $100,000/year. The could have been making more doing any number of things. They ain’t in it for the money. Additionally, we have zero incentive to lie or fake data, because to do so ends our careers. There is nothing in these emails that indicates inappropriate use of data.
there is only one word to describe your EXCUSES Chad ad that is they are LAME EXCUSES.
We join Al Gore aboard his 100-foot houseboat, the “Bio-Solar One.” (Ed: This is no joke. The initials of Al’s floating environmental nightmare really are “BS-1.” And you thought AlGore was an idiot.)
His executive assistant, Honey Buns, has just finished briefing him on “Climategate.”
“Oh Al,” she gasps, “Whatever are we going to do? Our secret is out. The whole world now knows Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax.” Honey pouts, thrusting out a plump lower lip.
Al Gore gazes off to the horizon; after a few moments, he drops his eyes to Honey’s generous bust.
“Honey, I’ve got almost a billion and a half bucks stashed away in various accounts around the world.” He smoothes back her long blond hair, kisses her on the cheek.
Throws back his head, “BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”
This is an epic disaster, an apparent complete melt down in trust of professionals. The US has funded, since Nixon’s time, entire departments, whose central charter is assessing important environmental threats. Yet, within days, we learn that the peer reviewed science can not meet the technical requirements that commercial professionals are legally bound to meet every day. What has the EPA been doing for three decades? Do they check data? software? model verification? Are the documents, developed by their consultants open to public scrunity? How do they select consultants? Do good old boys just fund each other? Their basic job has been called into question.
We have, with a short time, learned that the SEC blew the Bernie Madoff over view, NASA does not check their calculations, and a court judgment that the Corps of Engineers blew the New Orleans water management systems. This nation can not survive too many of these screw ups. Fundamental government responsibilities must be performed by honest, competent professionals, not ideologues. Americans people will suffer, if our watchdogs are asleep.
Al Gore should send his Nobel Peace Prize with Obama, as he goes to Oslo, or to shortcut the proses, he could just hand it over to that brave whistleblower who, with his courage’s act probably have saved millions of lifes.
By the way, it seems like Obama him self will go to Copenhagen, to try to save the boat…
And at last, since I touched the subject, most of us Norwegian does not agree with the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, on their decision to award the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. Unfortunately this is what happens when they fill up the committee with an overweight of socialists, and a few spineless right wings
There is a clear explanation of this nonsense here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
1. The Left will cease to use figures in its AGW campaign, and will fall back on unquantified predictions of doom; Posted by Francis Poretto.
Has already started happening. They’ve ramped up the “you’re all going to die” meme since the Emails popped out.
I really cant believe that nobody has mentioned that these emails were “stolen”, “hacked” from a university,and also have been edited and rewritten in some cases.if you turned off Fox news and Rush and Beck for 5 minutes,and did a little “legit” research on the actual news story,you would find out that a major crime has been committed,”computer hacking”.I am truly saddened that so many refuse to embrace knowledge or try to understand why this is happening,95 % of today scientist know that global warming is real,its not about left or right politics,every modern comfort in your life came from science,”everything”..j wood
If you want to experience true believers suppressing skeptical-friendly facts first-hand, try looking at the discussion pages and editing histories of Wikipedia articles that should record this event in a neutral and balanced manner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
jon wood,
It is very clear that the data here was the private email archive of soneone who worked in the facility in question. Occam’s Razor says he transferred it to a memory stick and uploaded to the Russian server from an on-site PC. Lots of people have done traffic analysis on the emails, and the conclusions are that those are genuine.
The odds are at least 10 to 1 that this was entirely an inside job, and close to 100/1 that an insider collected the data and smuggled it off-site.
Why don’t you arm yourself with some facts on climate change fundamentals.
From NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color.pdf
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/
Other sources:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html as a great primer.
http://www.leif.org/research/ a treasure trove once you understand the basics.
And this is just funny!
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/predictions/
climategate might seem new its just a title-anyone who has studied or read any climate records knew better-but look what it has caused-povertization-and the-scammers get richer while people are limited-stifled –climate change-global warming–if they have to keep changing the names-should give a hint to impractical farcical misinformation-just like government saying it wont cost-their ideas and proclamations-cost liberty and freedom
Dave posted:
Mt.Pinatubo in the Phillipines erupted in the early 1990’s. This volcano emitted carbon dioxide. At the time of the eruption the vulcanologists said the volcano put out more carbon dioxide the first day than man had been able to make since we learned to make fire. It erupted off and on for the next 10 years.
The U.S. Geological survey estimates that the CO2 emissions from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo as 42 Mt (million tons). The total CO2 from all volcanic activity worldwide is about 130 Mt per year. Emissions from human activity from the U.S. alone are about 6 Gt (billion tons). Where on earth are you getting your numbers?
Sure, the East Anglia and IPCC data are phoney. But there’s no excuse for adding more bad data to the pile.
Anyone who has been following this debate for at least ten years is fully aware of the bad science involved. There is not “just one second-rate university” involved here. Researchers from many other universities are involved in hiding their data and code, hindering their opponents, and producing garbage in the IPCC reports – which, incidently was absolutely NOT peer reviewed until Mcintyre took it on himself to expose the hockey stick chart. And what did he gain from it? Continuous abuse and total denial from the culprits.
How many dissenting views have been denied space in the IPCC reports? Those guys had the courtesy to resign from the IPCC when they were rebuffed, but that only gave the kings more freedom to spread their lies.
My PhD in geology and a dozen years in high-performance computers and fluid modeling told me from the start that these guys were not scientists. Peer review? They didn’t even have their software validated and when they caught it producing obviously wrong answers,like negative values where none should exist, they massaged the data!
It has been totally unacceptable from the start that the data and the software was hidden from view. Virtually none of their “scientific” reports adequately disclose the way they manipulated their data, much less referred to available standard climate modeling programs.
That must stop. Every country that has supported climate research must now demand that the data and the code they paid for be made available to the public.
There are countless examples of environmental degradation; no one disputes this. Why concentrate on a questionable and unproven GWT and argue about it? Coral reefs, desertification, falling water tables….why not address the specifics we all agree on?
Doctors in the emergency room don’t stop and debate the cause of bleeding; they stop it first, to save the life of the patient.
Eh? So some scientists are upset that an academic journal in their field is publishing papers that are not up to the standards of the science? And want that changed? THIS is considered a scandal?
Wow, climate change deniers have really little to go on…
OH MY GOD!!!! 35 YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC EFFORT OVERTURNED BY SOME OUT-OF-CONTEXT STATEMENTS TAKEN OUT OF EMAILS!!!
WHY DID I DEDICATE MY LIFE TO CLIMATE SCIENCE? TO MEASURING d18O? SEA LEVEL? ANYTHING?
I FEEL SO DEFRAUDED!!!
GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU FOR REVEALING THE HOLY TRUTH!
Poor Sam.
But PBS Newshour has no such remorse. You would think this had never happened.
Last night on the NewsHour, a report on Copenhagen, with all the usual propaganda,[and Judy Woodruff sp? reported that those who believe in "global warming" had fallen from 80% to 72%] was followed by “in-depth coverage,” billed as “The Global Warming Debate.”
But you would never know that there is even a debate from this feature! It was pathetic, featuring Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton and Samuel Thernstrom of the American Enterprise Institute. Anyone watching would believe the earth is still warming and on the way to disaster! [And the PBS sidebar info on AGW is bogus]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec09/climate2_11-25.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/letters.html
After the law suits, and the end of public funding. you have to change the textbooks and tell the public the facts. someone or a group of someone’s should find themselves broke(fined) and in prison!
Sam, people aren’t upset because “35 years of scientific effort has been overturned.” They’re upset because only one side of the debate is being presented to the public. These e-mails just serve to illustrate how hopelessly politicized the scientific process has become. It’s obviously gotten to the point now where certain people and institutions, including the media, are so totally invested in AWG that they are actually willing to falsify data, restrict open debate, and actually ostracize those who don’t buy into their agenda. This has now crossed the boundry from science over into ideology.
There are thousands of perfectly reputable scientists out there who either don’t believe in AWG or have serious doubts about it. They want the public to be asking questions like …
Why have temperatures flattened out and now started to fall even though CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise?
How can an increase in a trace gas (CO2) equal to just 80 parts per million (which is only 8/1000ths of 1 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere), in and of itself, cause planetary temperatures to rise?
Why is it that the amount of antarctic ice has actually been increasing over the last 25 years rather than decreasing and why is it that the ice sheet between Greenland and Canada is now the thickest it’s been in 15 years?
How is it possible that atmospheric CO2 levels have been 10 to 15 times higher in the Earth’s distant past than they are today and yet planetary temperatures at those times were essentially the same as they are now? Moreover, if planetary temperatures are as sensitive to CO2 content as the IPCC’s climate models would have us believe, why were there healthy polar icecaps at that time when, accoriding to their climate models, there shouldn’t have been so much as an ice cube anywhere on the planet?
We’d like to have an open debate about these and other issues before we start imposing ruinously expensive new carbon emissions standards that will cost untold billions and will, quite possibly, have absolutely zero effect on the planet’s climate.
Climate changes happen. They always have, and they always will. But they are caused by changes in the energy output of the sun, topographical changes on the Earth’s surface that alter weather patterns, and periodic perturbations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun as well as its angle of rotation. Compared against these factors, mankind’s burning of fossil fuels for a mere 200 years is laughably insignificant.
Craig, in 216, tells us all we have to do to understand these issues is go to RealClimate. Ha!
RealClimate is in on the fix! RealClimate is le apologists extraordinaire for all things supporting the AGW alarmist hoax. Their role is to obfuscate, spin, hide, distort, mistate, misrepresent, misdirect — in short, to do anything and everything possible to avert criticism and silence dissent.
And Craig wants us to believe their spin on this scandal? No thanks, I’ll believe my own eyes instead!
I will firmly agree to argue in defense of many of the environmentalists and ecological conservationists, as they are willing to be ‘conservative’ in usage and application of our
non-renewable resources. This makes great sense in all manner of behavior.
My issues are those which apply ‘scientific’ facades to promote a concept so that governments or ‘groups’ of persons with ideological goals may manipulate another group.
The GWH has been a vehicle to allow many who desire to gain control of social issues and monies by taxes and personal liberties has been at full throttle and I hope these jerks loose their jobs.
Chad -Either you have no clue concerning the real inner workings of scientists funded by government granting agencies or you actually do & are intentionally being deceptive.
1. A million dollar annual budget for climate science is indeed excessive. Most biomedical scientists working with very expensive animal models are not given this amount on a yearly basis.
2. It is an utter LIE that there is no reason for scientists to deceive. Unfortunately, I see it every day. My naive belief that science was the last bastion of pure “veritas” (my stubborn life motto) has absolutely been shattered. Unfortunately, b/c the “peer review” process is so completely one-sided (reviewers know your identity when scoring your grant & paper submissions but are simultaneously given anonymity allowing for certain jerks to attack you with stupid, unfounded comments without fear of being called-out for such dishonesty/cowardly behavior is just one glaring example.) If a reviewer knows that you already have “power” or are protected by those with “power” then they are less likely to attack you over data jealousy. (BTW, “power” = the power of persuasion over ….yes….journal editors.)
3. Let’s not also reveal to the public that unless you chose to do the “right” Ph.D. or the “right” post-doc (translation = under an already powerful lab in an “elite” univ. to make your connections early that help your career.)
4. Moreover, let’s go ahead and blatantly lie about the history of ignoring brilliant ideas that only reached breakthrough status after seeking private funding. (Estrogen-responsive breast cancer comes to mind.)
5. Hey taxpayers!!! Guess what else? The genius little frontal lobes that sit in positions of power while serving on NIH/NSF granting sections will NOT fund science that significantly reduces mortality UNLESS you have “mechanism”. Yet they will not hesitate in funding science with “mechanism” (i.e., knock-out a gene…wow like that’s hard) even though the in vivo (animal model) data (critical in validating the need to fund the study of that “mechanism”) is completely bogus. (Cherry-picking to outright lying).
6. Want to know why we honest scientists haven’t told anyone yet? Answer: journals, NIH, NSF won’t allow anyone to question another’s data as a whistleblower unless they properly identify themselves. What does this do to young scientists who did not know they had to brown-nose their way to “safe scientific power status”? Yep, they do not dare critique anyone openly b/c they would most certainly have their careers destroyed. (Just like it seems Holdren et al., attempted/were able to do).
7. Lastly, sometimes even well-established scientists have fudged their findings and “coaxed” a data set for positive results in order to save an entire project. Why? Scientists who have spent an entire career trying to make their mark in a certain area (& receive tenure) are sometimes confronted with the unfortunate reality that the unmanipulated raw data is no longer giving them the ammo necessary to prove their theories.
Psst – and this is the field of scientific research in which we are at least required to prove our theories in large animals and then through a clinical trial before even attempting to sell it to the entire population. If only we forced climate “scientists” (a disgrace!!!) and our elected politicians to prove that their political theories first do no further harm & then also deliver solutions better than current situations before signing anything into law…..we might actually begin to crack down on corruption that is literally rampant. Also, instead of allowing politicians an excuse to the “unintended consequences” of their “self-righteous ideas”, we should hold them to the same standards as scientists (that aren’t protected by dirty government officials) and more importantly doctors in that if their actions (laws passed) fail at any level….they are sued for malpractice.
This is why I openly support hackers and whistleblowers who only seek to expose truth (as long as they do not also scam money from the bank accounts of the innocent.)
To Douglas Gray,
Although I agree with you whole-heartedly that addressing real problems (such as coral reef devastation and overfishing) should be the focus instead of Al Gore’s evil propaganda crusade. I must make one small correction to your doctor analogy. There’s a reason physicians go to school for forever – to gain the ungodly amount of info necessary to arrive at an etiology (cause) of each individual ailment with hopes of reasonable success from appropriate intervention. What I’m trying to say is that doctors indeed do NOT fix a bleed without knowing its cause. Bleeds can come in all sizes and from a variety of causes, including GSW (gun-shot wounds), ruptured aortic aneurysms, aortic dissections, malignancies, hemorrhagic diatheses, etc… One must first have reasonable confidence in the diagnosis before attempting any treatment. (Doctors aren’t robots magically created at a M.D. Factory. They are human beings that choose to truly sacrifice their youth to follow the profession for relatively little compensation v/s politicians, lawyers, celebrities, finance execs, & Goldman-Sachs secretaries.)
Perhaps a little less “Doc TV” &/or “Physicians according to Obama” might come in handy. (If this is overkill – Profound apologies.)
“There is a clear explanation of this nonsense here:”
Yeah, I read it a few days ago. It’s a bunch of baloney.
“As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical.”
Despite the author’s claim, we don’t know how that information was obtained, and we don’t know that anyone has engaged in any illegal acts. And the claim that this is “private correspondence” is total hogwash.
What we do know is is that the information that has been published, including e-mails, is supposed to be available to anyone who requests it.
From UAE’s own website…
“5 key facts that all staff should know about Freedom of Information”
“The Act gives everyone both in and outside UEA a right of access to ANY recorded information held by UEA…”
“…You should ensure that UEA records are well maintained and accessible to other staff, so that they can locate information needed to answer a request when you are not there”
“As all documents and emails could potentially be released under the Act, you should ensure that those you create are clear and professional”
http://www.uea.ac.uk/is/foi/guidance
There isn’t anything unethical about publishing records that the public, by law, has a right to see.
The article at realclimate is the usual AGW true believer tripe: unsubstantiated claims mixed up with stuff that is flatly untrue.
“So what does this all mean? It does not mean that there is no warming trend or that mankind has not been responsible for at least some of the warming.”
You can’t muse that mankind may be responsible for “at least some of the warming” when you have not offered any more than another musing that there may even be a warming trend. This statement emasculates your whole article and might best have been left unsaid.
#6, Dan you are obviously not frequently called upon to do peer evaluation, since you can’t spell beyond the level of a 10 year old:
“Weather in a journal or in a forum like this it peer review”
…try whether, weather is the stuff we are debating…fool
So what happens if the trend does turn to cooling? Does the world force us all to buy vehicles with large engines and get some co2′s in the air? Will we all be forced to Bar B Que nightly so the escaping heat warms the earth? Do we pay a new ice tax based on the size of our freezers? Government, science, politics, and a never ending exposure to lies. It is a wonder people believe anything anymore, I don’t. The frightening new area of skepticism is the non belief in our news outlets.
Now if I was the owner of a newspaper and needed to make some staff cuts I think I’d drop the environment reporters.
This is known as a tipping point.
Thanks to the hackers…..or whistleblowers- who ever you are…
I just hope Copenhagen gets called off, or this won’t amount to a pile of goredroppings. North America is going to sign up to be completely taken over in the name of saving the planet from a harmless gas.
I’ll spread the word.
You should too!
My favorite lie the last few winters when it gets really COLD is the warmists blaming the cold on global warming! They think ya’ll are really stupid. No really.
The problem is, it has already begun (the legislation) and the bureaucracy is mostly in place, people have been hired,
some even believe in man made global warming. the governments in place all over the world will probably say something like “It isn’t as big a problem as we thought, but it will be soon, so lets just stay on track” or something of the sort. as we all know it’s about connected people getting richer and amassing more power. A few leaked emails isn’t going to change a thing. I honestly believe the only thing at this point that could make a change is a true revolution, and that aint gonna happen in today’s apathetic society. Government is just too big, corrupt and controlling to let anything they don’t want to happen, happen. As a “subject” in America, don’t fool yourself, your wishes are absolutely meaningless, unless, you happen to agree with the controllers, in which case you as a “subject”
are basically placated into believing that you have some power or control, you as a “subject” have none.
http://www.infowars.com/climate-gate-is-your-fight/
http://gnosis474.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-gate-is-your-fight.html
November 27, 2009
Those in the know are fully aware that the mainstream media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the State. You’re reading this, so you’re probably one of those people. It is so easy to fall into the mental trap that, if you know something, then how can it not be common knowledge? The sheep don’t even know what the carbon tax is, or what’s at stake in Copenhagen. They are completely and utterly clueless.
For the rest of us, the fight is joined. The globalists have thrown their best punches while we played rope-a-dope. Even before this scandal broke, they were running out of gas. Their gloves were heavy. A global agreement to supposedly cut carbon emissions, if you believed what the media told you (I don’t), was in already in jeopardy prior to the release of the hacked emails. These revelations are a flurry of knockout blows, if only we’re able to break through the media blackout and propaganda protecting these criminals from being fully exposed. The media will not be our ally in this.
The globalists, the eugenicists, are in this for the long haul. All of their eggs are in the climate hoax basket. They’re not going to stop now. Why would they? We all know this was never about climate change in the first place. We knew that they knew that it was the sun driving the climate, and that temperatures haven’t risen in at least ten years. If this were about saving the Earth – if they truly were not evil, just wrong, as the newest documentary naively suggests – then the climate scientists would’ve packed it in a long time ago.
No, what this is and always was about is an excuse for global government. This they certainly do not deny. Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General, penned an op-ed in the New York Times last month in which he called for a global government funded by carbon taxes. The new president of the European Union, Herman van Rompuy, said that 2009 was the first year of global governance, and that the Copenhagen climate conference would be “another step towards the global management of our planet”. In July, Al Gore spoke at Oxford University and stated that global governance, funded by the Waxman-Markey cap and trade tax which will be voted upon in the Senate within the coming weeks, is necessary for combating “climate change”.
The globalist plan for world government – the elimination of national sovereignty, ie the destruction of the United States of America – must be fully exposed. We know that this scheme is completely unknown to the vast majority of people. Perhaps now that Glenn Beck is finally speaking of this conspiracy, the Fox “News” crowd will get their heads out of their rears and realize it’s not “liberals” behind this, it’s globalists – there are prominent Republicans and so-called conservative leaders pushing this as well. Unfortunately, because Beck and Fox actively promote the left-right paradigm, the establishment will still try to paint the issue as an attack by right wing hacks and special interests.
Whatever, is happening to my family’s and my lifestyle without us having our say? Find out go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
This is all part of the New World Order and One World Government Movement now being implemented by Barack Hussein Obama. Take Van Jones’ own word for it (once Obama’s Green Jobs Czar) when he said that “Green” is the new “Red”.
On the very first Earth Day in 1970, liberal progressives were holding signs declaring that there was a new Ice Age coming. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Don’t be a sheep, do your own research.
I’ve been following this one as well. It’s unfortunate to see researchers passionate about their cause resort to information filtering in order to overstate their case (this is assuming the stolen information is authentic and not altered by the hacker who executed the theft). I think they started viewing themselves as a side in a war and thus lost a lot of their objectivity.
Not that this scandal changes things much; on our side of the pond, we have things called satellites that let us take reliable global measurements, and a fairly politically-neutral agency named NASA that has been conducting consistent satellite-based research across Republican and Democrat administrations for several decades. In general they stay clear of the debate regarding whether humans are causing global warming and stick with pure measurement-based science.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/ClimateEssentials/#TheEssentials
This is why most Republicans in office and non-editorial news writers have been quiet about the effects of the UK-based scandal; all in all our government has its own data that is more reliable than the stuff coming over from Europe; it’s not worth criticizing research that in general we don’t use for decision making anyway.
All of the editorial right-wing pundits saying global warming is a proven hoax because some European research is biased really are being disingenuous; either that or they simply don’t know about the space-age climate research we do over here. And as usual, the left royally sucks at presenting information to the public in a digestible fashion. President Obama and company could clobber this controversy by showcasing NASA’s research in a news conference, but unfortunately, the left never seems to feel its necessary to explain what they feel is already obvious.
I am a Japanese and a financial engineer.
I appreciate your excellent analysis to the ClimateGate.
I take your article up on my blog below, thank you!
http://blog.kaisetsu.org/?eid=810436
An excerpt from a grad paper I wrote in 2008 speaks to the dumbing down and deceit practiced by the MSM regarding AGW:
“A surprising statement by Walter Cronkite in 1976 refers to a systemic problem with the product he delivered to millions:
‘We fall short of presenting all or a good part of the news each day that a citizen would need to intelligently exercise his franchise in this democracy. So as he depends more on us, presumably the depth of knowledge of the average man diminishes. This clearly can lead to disaster in a democracy.’
“Cronkite recognized that the informed electorate needed for America’s self-governing experiment to succeed was inadequately served by the small amount of news that television has the time and space to deliver. What was filtered out and what was subsequently delivered was in the hands of a few individuals. How many Americans to this day rely only on television for their news about the world and important issues that they must vote upon? Perhaps Cronkite’s warning should be in front of every newscast.”
Using Internet RSS feeds and thinking critically are skills that voters wishing to be informed must learn and practice. Consuming MSM fodder with a channel switcher only makes you dumber.
Don’t worry about how the Jurassic Media is not reporting this story now–all the better to show the complicity when it does break later, and it has to break eventually. Probably we’ll see it break when the Messiah hits Copenhagen.
Al Gore and Obama–the great Nobel Frauds.
Hopefully this is the tip of the iceberg. Usually when some individual or party on the left is caught with their pant’s down there’s an uproar in the minor section of the media that either is or is tolerant of conservatives and then the issue disappears.
Chemtrails, Chemtrails, Chemtrails, Chemtrails….no discussion of the intentional high altitude release of particulates worldwide via large tanker jets……then no discussion of climate change, global warming or clean environments, PERIOD, end of discussion. IF you don’t see it and ask who and why…. you are the fool your mama raised. Get serious folks, boundless evil is in our midst. Chemtrails, Chemtrails, Chemtrails, Chemtrails….do your homework boys and girls!…next click!!!
The way I read the peer review emails is that these scientists tried to prevent a formerly reasonable “peer reviewed” journal from publishing crap science that would never pass review by bona fide reviewers. Not because the submitted paper was dissenting from theirs, but because the dissenting views were based on completely unscientific crap. In other words, the review process had broken down at GRL, which was now going to publish bogus crap for political reasons and they were trying to stop it. They were trying to uphold the peer review process by not allowing a bunch of charlatans to take over a journal, publish total crap, and then allow the denier crowd to claim victory (a “peer reviewed” publication).
The FOI requests were for data that they received conditionally from another agency and were not at liberty to release. Until the originating agency removed that condition, they could not release that data – only a tiny percent of the data they used. All the rest of the data (98% or more) is publicly available.
As for the “trick” used to “hide” the temperature data: Replace “trick” with “clever technique” and “hide” with “correctly calibrate”. The sentence is talking about a technique for mapping the data correctly you dolts, not fudging the results.
You need to take these emails in the context of what they are referring to, and you are not. Not that I expect you to.
Cherry-picked, these emails look bad, but you lot have still failed to come up with a better explanation for the data – almost all of which is publicly available. You can shout “you’re wrong” all you want, but that doesn’t make it so. Go grab the data yourself and show us your better theory that accounts for it. And I don’t mean one tiny and incorrect result published in a suspect journal, I mean a real theory/model that accounts for the data and backs up your rants. Please!
But I guess since you can’t reasonably debunk the science, you’re left to try and malign the scientists. It’s so sad that enough politicians are listening to you that it is delaying the real changes that need to be made to stop things from going from bad to worse.
And all your talk of global cooling in the past 10 years… What a hoot. 8 of the hottest years on record (globally) have occurred in the past 10 years. You think because 1998 was abnormally hot (due to el nino) or that 2005 was hotter than the past 4 years that we’re in a cooling trend? You’re delusional. Go look it up the data on Nasa’s web site. There’s a nice graph dating back to 1880That’s “global” temperature, not US temperature (for you yahoos that claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record). You can also get the tabular data and make the plot yourself. And that is with the correction for an error found a year or two ago that you lot like to yammer about. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. This is data from NASA, which is in line with data from the CRU. You can see the trend and that year to year variation is high. Claiming we’re in a cooling regime is a joke – look up the difference between climate and weather please. Write back when you can account for this trend without AGW. I know the Earth’s climate changes over longer time frames, but guess what, this rise cannot be accounted for by any other factors that are currently known. When you find said factors, let me know. I’d be much much happier if we didn’t have a real climate change problem.
cleaner post – sorry.
The way I read the peer review emails is that these scientists tried to prevent a formerly respectable “peer reviewed” journal from publishing crap science that would never pass review by bona fide reviewers. Not because the submitted paper was dissenting from theirs, but because the dissenting views were based on bad science. In other words, the review process had broken down at GRL, which was now going to publish bogus results for political reasons and these “respectable” scientists were trying to stop it. They were trying to uphold the peer review process by not allowing a bunch of charlatans to take over a journal, publish garbage, and then allow the denier crowd to claim victory (a “peer reviewed” publication).
The FOI requests were for data that they received conditionally from another agency and were not at liberty to release. Until the originating agency removed that condition, they could not release that data – only a tiny percent of the data they used. All the rest of the data (98% or more) is publicly available.
As for the “trick” used to “hide” the temperature data: Replace “trick” with “clever technique” and “hide” with “correctly calibrate”. The sentence is talking about a technique for mapping the data correctly, not fudging the results.
You need to take these emails in the context of what they are referring to, and you are not. Not that I expect you to.
Cherry-picked, these emails may look bad, but you lot have still failed to come up with a better explanation for the data – almost all of which is publicly available. You can shout “you’re wrong” all you want, but that doesn’t make it so. Go grab the data yourself and show us your better theory that accounts for it. And I don’t mean one tiny and incorrect result published in a suspect journal, I mean a real theory/model that accounts for the data and backs up your rants. Please!
But I guess since you can’t reasonably debunk the science, you’re left to try and malign the scientists. It’s so sad that enough politicians are listening to you that it is delaying the real changes that need to be made to stop things from going from bad to worse.
And all your talk of global cooling in the past 10 years… What a hoot. 8 of the hottest years on record (globally) have occurred in the past 10 years. You think because 1998 was abnormally hot (due to el nino) or that 2005 was hotter than the past 4 years that we’re in a cooling trend? Not so – that’s just bad science, once again. Go look up the data on Nasa’s web site. There’s a nice graph dating back to 1880. That’s “global” temperature by the way, not US temperature (for you deniers that like to claim that 1934 was the hottest year on record). You can also get the tabular data and make the plot yourself. And that is with the correction for an error found a year or two ago that you lot like to go on about. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. This is data from NASA, which is in line with data from the CRU. You can see the trend and that year to year variation is high. But claiming we’re in a cooling regime based on this data is a joke – look up the difference between climate and weather please. Write back when you can account for this trend without AGW. I know the Earth’s climate changes over longer time frames, but guess what, this rise cannot be accounted for by any other factors that are currently known. When you find said factors, let me know. I’d be much much happier if we didn’t have a real climate change problem.
I am disgusted that our nedia is so controlled that they fail to report the truth anymore
The men that are playing this game of “get the research money, even if you have to cheat and lie” are missing the larger picture of what they have already done. The very foundation of the legitimacy of what science tells us is eroded buy this caustic brew of deceit and professional espionage. To discard any modicum of real debate about legitimate research and its interpitation and substitute a cabal of academic cronies ethically capable of deliberate deletion of correspondence relating to the systematic contamination of research for their own ends casts death pallor over the entire face of science. These idiots have undone what has taken centuries to achieve, they have delegitimized scientific morality to the extent that the public will now believe that science is nothing more than another religion, with its own dogma and evangelists, and that money and power are the true goals being pursued, rather than discovery and advancement. How truly sad and degusting that these men have so little moral direction that they would demolish the legitimacy of the cornerstone of modern existence and throw men back into the hands of superstition, ignorance and fear. Shame on them, for what they have done may be irreparable.
Seems that some do not remember that the leadership at NASA is part and parcel to this debate. The payed piper of global warming runs the place. If memory serves, a little known Hungarian scientist worked there a few years back and discovered that the derivation for one of the formulas used to program the global weather model contained an error dating back to 1922. This error was the equivalent of defining the earth’s atmosphere as extending from the surface to the far corners of the universe, in other words, infinitely thick. Once he accounted for this small over site, he constructed his own global model and what do you know – the known data and the model track together almost exactly, something the NASA model still can’t do. His model also works perfectly with Mars. The real problem though was that this model showed that the earth has a self regulation system that doesn’t allow runaway global warming!
Don’t remember hearing about this, that’s because he was shown the door when he wouldn’t keep his mouth shut after they patted him on the head and buried the research. Why hasn’t someone brought this to the attention of the scientific community, they have. But when there is no chance of runaway global temps, then there there’s no pot of research funding gold at the end of the heat mirage
You all like to go on and on about the pot of gold that researchers are raking in. You are dreaming. You are clearly not in academia. These guys are making a pittance – especially when compared to oil and gas execs. Do you really think they’re going to lie cheat and steal for a few measly bucks? As has been pointed out by the deniers, in one of the purloined documents is a list of all the grants that Phil Jones has received in the past 20 years. It comes to about 13.8 million pounds (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en). But naturally, you have failed to do the proper math. If you take the grants and divide each by the number of researchers it went to, you find that Phil Jones (a relative big-wig) pulls in only about 171,000 pounds per year (about $280,000 at the current exchange rate) in grants. Now, you may think, “I wish I were being paid $280,000 per year” (heck, I do) – but that’s not their salary, that is grant money that goes to pay for equipment, staff, travel, overhead (maintaining buildings, etc) , and salary (though salary is negotiated with the university and is only related to the amount of grant money you bring in because the more you bring, the more salary you can ask for from the institution – lest you take your grants elsewhere). These university researchers are clearly not making things up for monetary gain – the numbers are pretty obvious. This is not the field to be in if you’re going for the big bucks. I don’t think Phil Jones’ salary was published anywhere, but it’s probably under $100k.
Of course, I forgot, NASA and all of its scientists (well, except for the Hungarian) are in on the conspiracy. Yawn! Cute story though about your “little known Hungarian scientist”. Very good for a laugh. Very convenient for you that his research was “buried” and that after NASA gave him the boot he presumably could not re-derive this great model of his that accounts for everything and presumably has no AGW component. What’s this fabled scientist’s name? Did they deport him back to Hungary where he is now in a tiny jail cell guarded 24/7 by the climate police? Is this Hungarian the same guy who found a way to make cars run on tap water but was silenced by the auto industry? Puh-leez, when someone points out an actual error in NASA’s model or data, they fix it and thank the person who pointed it out (as they apparently did a few years ago when your much touted Steven McIntyre noticed a small discrepancy in some NASA data – see http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html), they don’t bury it as you claim. In the end of course, the difference to the mean global temperature plots as a result of the discrepancy that McIntyre found was negligible.
Sadly, the post that I was replying to seems to have disappeared. Too bad. You all should have read it – pretty funny stuff.
“If the CRU data has been corrupted, and there is no longer any doubt that it has been:
Moho: “Is there really no doubt? ”
Yes, there is no doubt that the CRU data included fudge factors that skewed results, and in other respects is in such a bad state that it cannot be relied upon in ANY way without a full and thoroughgoing investigation of what the real raw data is and what the proper reconstructions are. CRU says they dont even HAVE their original data! Pathetic really, that they are given millions of dollars and cant even maintain the Crown Jewels, the full temp records.
WE KNOW THERE ARE MISTAKES AND DATA FUDGING GALORE IN THE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS AS WELL … from the emails:
1. Upside down proxies! “Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the Korttajarvi series has little impact on the overall reconstructions. Also, the series was not included in the calibration. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data. We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely related to organic matter content. I should have used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.”
2. Undercounting the Urban Heat Island – Jones: “In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London’s UHI and the effect that it hasn’t got any bigger since 1900. It’s easy to do with 3 long time series”
3. Fiddling until they get the desired result – “I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period – the attached plot has eight sites that go from 946-1960″ … “Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back ”
4. Hiding the data that doesnt fit the story … this is from Prof Mann: ”
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
(…) But basically, you’ll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case–its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can’t seem to dig them up. (…) p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…”
See – http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html
These clowns (Mann, Jones, et al) has proven this: IF YOU TORTURE DATA LONG ENOUGH, IT WILL CONFESS TO ANYTHING.
“I really cant believe that nobody has mentioned that these emails were “stolen”, “hacked” from a university,and also have been edited and rewritten in some cases”
They havent been ‘stolen’, those who possessed them still have them. The emails and files have been released by an anonymous whistleblower who pre-empted the violation of FOI law in UK by Jones and colleagues. That’s why the file was called FOI2009.zip.
Someone on the inside was clearly tired of the lies and deceptions by the climate ‘scientists’ pushing the man-made global warming scam. If honest and real science was being done, there would be no “ClimateGate” at all.
It’s time the ‘true believers’ stopped believing in the AGW Tooth Fairy and woke up to reality.
They have insulted us with their propaganda and looked down on us for to long.. The sleeping giant is awake and all the garbage sorting in the world isnt going to save them.. We see you and we are not amused..
“3. Fiddling until they get the desired result – “I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature of the medieval warm period ”
Funny how you can twist a sentence to suit your needs. If you bothered to actually read this stuff instead of blindly reposting someone else’s drivel, you will see that what is written is “fiddling with the best way to illustrate …”. Not fiddling with the result. In other words, trying to find the best way to “illustrate” the result to get it through heads as thick as yours.
#1) Assuming this email hasn’t been altered, you conveniently clip the text, which goes on to state ” I
suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update showing the corrected composite
(Nick’s graph) and post it to RealClimate.” Which is exactly what was done. The “corrected composite” was only negligibly different from the original. The author is suggesting owning up to his error and showing how it doesn’t affect the result. Seems like exactly the response one would want from a good scientist.
#2) Showing valid data from London. What’s the problem?
#4) Again, assuming this email hasn’t been altered. No, not “hiding data that doesn’t fit the story”. However, he does seem to want to gloss over the fact that the residuals (uncertainties) are larger as one goes farther back. So this does at least appear to be case of not giving all the details in order to make one’s case appear stronger. Just remember though, that the residuals are only the error bars, not the data points. He’s not fudging the data, just not wanting to show the uncertainties involved. In the worst case, that one data set (of many) had little influence in the overall graph. It’s not likely that those error estimates were ignored when generating the composite.
And his final claim is sadly justified as you are distorting things quite a bit.
“It’s time the ‘true believers’ stopped believing in the AGW Tooth Fairy and woke up to reality.”
I think it’s time for the climate change deniers to at least attempt to make a real scientific argument against AGW instead of just calling the real scientists names and thinking that somehow refutes the theory.
AGW should forever be called “Piltdown man-made GW”.
264 comments precede mine. I’ve read many. My children read, as did I, predicitions of a new ice age. Some are now grandparents. A strong truth, which I believe applies to those who now reject evidence of deceit, fraud, data manipulation, and ideologically driven prejudgment funded by cash/grants from the Dept. of Energy is this:
The UNCONVICED cannot be because they will not. Reasons for the failure of will or trust are as varied as the personalities and backgrounds of the unconvinced. Maybe the watergate admonition will help. Follow the money.
If you read the emails and conclude that there is “deceit, fraud, data manipulation” and all the rest, that’s fine, but none of those claims supports the deniers belief that AGW is a myth. It’s impossible to convince the deniers of the existence of AGW since they insist on talking about everything but actual science. If the deniers could put forth a reasonable scientific model that explains the data, I’d be happy to accept their model. Unfortunately there is nothing that will convince the denier. By the way, I think it is far-fetched to claim that NASA and the CRU across the pond are in a conspiracy together to falsify the data. The data are available. Go at it and provide a better theory than corrupt, data-manipulating, frauds, and I’ll be eating it up.
The bottom line is the best and most scientifically correct theories that can account for the data all need to incorporate AGW. No one has yet to produce a theory that accounts for the data without AGW.
Jeb, the only thing “man-made” about climate change is the theory itself.
What a boondoggle!
Money and job security for those studying it and an excuse to tax and control citizens for governments funding the research. An of course BIG MONEY for Goldman Sachs auctioning the carbon credits and for GE, Algore etc…
Follow the money!
See Al Gore’s response to Climategate here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ymxLA5oRYI
The trolls are good. Without them then we are all just preaching to the choir. But keep preaching. Never shut up about this. The fun has only begun.
They have been caught red handed. There is nothing they can say. Well, they can lie and deny and kick and fuss and scream. But it is over. They can’t open their mouths without sounding foolish. Soon even the brainwashed sheep will recognize the sound of BS as it bleats from their own mouths in support of AGW. They will slowly stop.
They too will realize that it is a big lie scare tactic to tax a primordial element and fill globalist pockets to bulging with pillaged planetary worth.
What’s wrong with everyone? How did you fall for this to begin with?
This whole thing reeked of horse hockey years ago… long before the place started cooling.
Government scientist are just that. You can only trust these people to be agenda driven. It’s got NOTHING to do with “science.”
And it’s not just these freaks. All science coming out of all Government agencies is corrupt. Period.
NASA, FDA, EPA. All of it. If anything is even remotely connected to the U.N…. it is, without exception, complete baloney.
Everything coming out of the MSM is manure. Most claims, pronouncements and findings coming from Academia are gloss coated in triple thick ignorance sauce.
If you want the truth about ANYTHING, just take what an “institution” or “agency” says about “it,”
and believe the opposite.
You’ll do well.
Jeb:
You are crazily being an apologist for fascistic treatment of science.
You are crazily justifying as science, what has just been outed as non-science… indeed as obvious and instantly recognizable fraud.
I suppose if it was just the people commenting on this website that find your “arguments” wanting, then you may feel self satisfied in the continued rhetoric. But dude, these people are probably going to jail when the fat lady stops singing. Unlike you, a lot of people take this seriously, and see it for what it is. You can “explain away” all you want. You are just lying and everyone knows it… even that nice woman’s children who are reading.
I repeat… there is NOTHING you can say. It is plain english. It is computer codes. It is backdoor notations. It is admitted. It is over.
Red handed.
There are going to be so many people suing when this picks up steam. NOBODY is going to let this go.
Just wait for it. It hasn’t even started yet. There are some seriously miffed powerful people who are in “preparation” mode.
The “fan” is about to become very slick and smelly.
Did you see Governor Arnie with his Jackie Mason wig and bulging steroid eyes stand up there and try to scare monger California into a global-warming-drowned-San-Francisco-panic just as ClimateGate broke in America.
My dear Lord what was that? Can you believe the desperation of these people?
Here we are, the cat TOTALLY OUT OF THE BAG… and the Governator takes you for idiots. Blind stupid deaf and dumb morons.
I’m telling you, the gig is up for these clowns. People aren’t as stupid as that. A lot are… but there is enough that aren’t.
This ruling class group of liars are going to have pie in their face for lunch. All because some hero “leaked” some emails that show the world what true scumbags are really like.
Gore is going to go down in flames. It’s going to be spectacular.
They will probably start World War Three just to save face.
These people are genocidal maniacs.
Could you imagine a “leak” of Gore’s emails? That would be like cream on top of butter.
We know that they are stinking rich, and they are psychotic. We know they are powerful. We know they lie like others breath. We know that they have an agenda. We know who they are. We know what they do.
How can this go on?
Answer: Mass brainwashing. Fluoridated water. Television.
Sadly, the only sheep around here are the ones who have been brainwashed by the corporate-funded lies and anti-science that have so many of the ignorant souls believing that AGW is a hoax. It’s truly a pity.
And you go on and on and on with your non-scientific arguments and conspiracy theories. So all gov’t agencies and all of academia are corrupt and in on the fix. All of the data from independent organizations all over the world that are in agreement about global warming are fraudulent. It’s a truly ridiculous notion. And still not one bit of valid science to back up your claims that AGW isn’t real.
Gore’s email’s may well be full of highly incriminating pronouncements. I wouldn’t be surprised, he’s a politician. But that doesn’t alter the fact (OK, technically not fact, but high probability) that global warming is here and it is the direct result of the burning of fossil fuels.
Either make a valid scientific argument or hang it up. The data and valid scientific arguments in support of AGW have been piling up from independent scientists all over the world for 25 years. Still waiting for anything remotely convincing from the AGW=hoax camp.
Since the world has been cooling for 9 years, I would think that it is you that needs to provide evidence for AGW.
But the “evidence” you put forth has been discredited.
It’s made up.
What don’t you get about that?
An unpoliticized look at the data shows that “the greenhouse theory” is utterly wrong… the “hockey stick” is utterly wrong… your “histories” are utterly wrong… your projections and predictions are complete hogwash.
and still you bleat on…
You just sound like a fool.
I’m not trying to “convince” you of anything. You are beyond reason.
You are one of those thick-skulled people… otherwise known as a complete waste of time.
Your mind is merely a product of the control matrix set up by those who would tax your exhalations.
There’s something wrong with you Jeb. If you can’t see what is sitting right in front of your face… there’s something wrong with you.
Sorry dude. Sorry for ya.
It’s clear from your post that you lack even the most basic of scientific reasoning skills and instead rely on completely bogus talking points from your denier friends. So, I’m afraid it is I who am wasting my time here.
If you really believe that the past 9 years of temperature data indicate a cooling trend, you are beyond hope. Look at any global temperature data set. Here’s NASA’s data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. The past dozen years include 10 of the hottest 12 years on record (1999 and 2000 are the only ones that don’t make the cut – they rank 15 and 14 respectively). Make that 11 for 13 if you include the projected result for 2009 (a foregone conclusion at this point). You can look at the tabular data on the same page to see actual numbers. Pick any starting point you want, you get a similar statement.
Temperature data fluctuates from year to year, but the trend (look that word up) is up, up, up. You think by picking your starting point at a conveniently high record year you can claim there is a cooling trend. That’s not science, that’s wishing. If you want to get technical, you’ll have to make the cutoff 8 years ago if you want a “cooling trend” (with 9 or more years, you still an upward trend). But it’s ridiculous to speak of a trend at all with such a small number of data points. Any “trend” you notice (up or down) in this data over such a short period is in the noise (not discernable from year-to-year fluctuations) and therefore not a trend at all. If you want to see a trend you need to use enough data points that you have more signal than noise.
I know I used a lot of big scientific words, but try to grasp truth. There is no discernable cooling trend in the past decade!
It is possible (though very unlikely) that this decade does mark the beginning of a cooling trend – but there will be no way to make that assessment for another 10 to 20 years. There will always be short-scale ups and downs, but they do not hide the overall trend (there’s that pesky word again) of the past 130 years (as far as this dataset goes back), and that is up.
If you want to argue that the past century and a half (or longer) are just a short-scale up in a longer-scale trend or cycle, that is at least a valid argument to make. That’s why real scientists have spent so much time and effort in proving (to a high degree of certainty) that the current upward trend is a direct result of the burning of fossil fuels.
Talk about sheeples. I pity you that swallow the denier talking points without even looking for the truth.
The world has been cooling for the past 9 years? Who said? Don’t quote the CRU “evidence” in those few emails amongst thousands — they were written 10 years ago. And BTW, the evidence they were supposedly trying to hide ended up in the following IPCC conference anyway. If you want to talk about evidence manipulation, talk about the American Petroleum Institute before they accepted that man-made global warming is compelling science. You denialists people are sheep.
Here’s where it all boils down to, first, scientists work in the world of ideas, trying their best to turn them into useful knowledge, it is the engineer who models and designs, and the rest that actually build and maintain. (never forget the singular inportrance of the bean counters. Blessed be the bean counters, there are only so many beans to work with and without any beans it is all a no go from the get go).
All involved are just people, they have to eat, have a roof over their heads, raise the next generation, and all have an ego that drives the attempt each in their own way to improve the way of life.
Ego is driven by beliefs and it is the narrowing of those beliefs that has enabled this mistake to arise.
It is the scientist’s goal to understand and explain, but keep in mind that creature comforts and financial security are just as important to them as any other person.
Follow the money (ie power and security) and you begin to see how all of this has spiraled out of control. Too many people have invested their lives in this to allow clear vision of the global warming theory.
It is human folly and egomania that drives us to believe we can have a permanent control over or be able to systematically alter mother nature. Impact yes, but the complexity of nature, its ability to surprise, heal and adapt that will keep all of us on the sideline for a little longer. We don’t even rate being a guide at this time.
It is a blessing that this is ocurring in a way, (the cup’s half full), who knows what knowledge will be gained out of this conflict in the longer run from the time and efforts from both sides of the fence. Continued study is the answer, not action, to best take advantage of the attention this issue has created.
The soft sciences created out of the hard sciences to address this situation have allowed, like an intelligent child without maturity, those involved to run amuck both in belief of their own credibility and accomplishments as compared to say physics.
Take away all the spin about fraud, scam, funding, egomania and what is left is a case of unabated scientific enthusiam.
Yes, gained or loss of reputation, employment/funding shifting, political success and failure, will occur. But the real challenge to scientists now will be internal.
In other words, it is best to go back to the lab and do a little more work, all of you, with a little less money, and come back when you have something better to work with, both sides.
We have the time, and still beileve in your abilities, but there is just too much mush and grey to move forward. And watch who you are getting into bed with, that is why to most of you, again both sides, are in the fix you find yourself in.
It’s all very confusing…
Scientists now hold a reputation standing along side Politicians and Lawyers as the most devious, deceitful and selfish professions on the planet.
And the Warmists have joined the league of Religious Extremism, by their relentless false propaganda.
This blog is very nice and informative.Thank you for the great story.
Hmm it looks like your blog ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I as well am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new to everything. Do you have any tips for newbie blog writers? I’d really appreciate it.
You don
Saludos!Me gustaria comentar que todo lo que as escrito es a la misma conclusion que he llegado yo.
comment
Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you actually know what you’re speaking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally talk over with my web site =). We will have a hyperlink alternate agreement between us