backtop


Print 140 comment(s) - last by Chiisuchianu.. on May 13 at 4:38 PM


The main climategate investigations have wrapped up and concluded that the British researchers involved made mistakes, but did not commit academic misconduct.  (Source: Zazzle)

The state of Virginia just launched a new investigations stemming from climategate into Michael Mann's research at the University of Virginia. The state is looking at emails to try to determine if Mann committed fraud to obtain $500,000 in state grant money.  (Source: Penn State University)
Panel found Phil Jones did nothing wrong, in review of leaked emails

Several months ago, DailyTech covered news of "climategate", a massive email leak from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.  In many of the leaked emails researchers discussed global warming research and made comments that sounded suspiciously close to academic misconduct.

The leak began with a bang and went out with a whimper.  The University of East Anglia reported in mid-April that Phil Jones, the climatologist who headed the CRU, was forced to temporarily step down during the investigation. However, Jones was found innocent of any wrongdoing by both a government panel and an independent panel of scientists.

The government panel, conducted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (part of the British Parliament), concluded that the problems were more a result of poor documentation than misconduct.  Describes Committee Chair Phil Willis MP, "What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided."

The investigation panel, which consisted of six scientists, looked into the leaked emails as well.  Their conclusions, found here, also show that no wrongdoing occurred.  Writes the panel, "We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganized researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal."

That's not to say that the scandal hasn't had a serious impact on the field.  The independent panel admonished the researchers for not employing professional statisticians, writing, "We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists."

If there's one clear message from the to panels, it's a direct challenge to climatologists: pursue outside expertise and carefully document your work (and make said work available to the public).

Even as Phil Jones prepares to resume his post, at the recommendation of the independent panel, the echoes of the leak are still being heard.  The State of Virginia just launched an investigation [PDF] into the work of Michael Mann, a researcher at the University of Virginia that was involved in the emails.

Mann's "hockey stick" graph became an icon for the global warming movement.  Now the state is pursuing an investigation over whether Mann engaged in fraud and deception to obtain $500,000 in state funding.

One can only hope that legitimate climatologists heed the advice of the British panels and conduct thorough and unbiased research, setting aside their personal opinions on the topic of global warming.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Investigations
By historybuff on 5/6/2010 1:02:48 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately neither one of the UK investigations were in depth and detailed. No witnesses, very shoddy work. Those investigations do not give me give any comfort. The emails do show they tampered with the peer review process and that has not been addressed. Perhaps with the new investigation into Michael Man we will have a serious investigation instead of whitewash.




RE: Investigations
By porkpie on 5/6/2010 1:35:44 PM , Rating: 5
On the contrary, the Oxburg spent the massive amount of 15 man days (5 people for 3 days?) investigating the work of East Anglia. Surely that's sufficient to investigate several decades of work by 60+ different researchers! I hear they even considered talking to some of the people mentioned in those nasty emails...but instead chose to interview no one but supporters of the East Anglia group. Surely that's wise...after all, what good could have come of diverting the investigation like that?

And to those people who callowly cry out that Lord Oxburgh, who headed the investigation, also runs a carbon trading firm, as well as a renewable energy firm, I say, show me your proof! Just because he stands to make millions from global warming alarmism in no way means he would have any conflict of interest here.


RE: Investigations
By grenableu on 5/6/2010 1:52:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
to those people who callowly cry out that Lord Oxburgh, who headed the investigation, also runs a carbon trading firm, as well as a renewable energy firm,
Whoa, really? That's unbelievable, heh.


RE: Investigations
By blowfish on 5/6/2010 2:58:49 PM , Rating: 5
+10, nicely put, porkpie! Follow the money is all you have to do.

These alarmists have raised billions, the average UK taxpayer shells out over $1200 per yer on AGW nonsense, all this in the middle of the worlds worst recession.

Then you get the total hypocrites like Al Gore - how big is his carbon footprint I wonder, with all his properties, travel and self-agrandisment?


RE: Investigations
By whiskerwill on 5/6/2010 3:17:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Then you get the total hypocrites like Al Gore - how big is his carbon footprint I wonder, with all his properties, travel and self-agrandisment?
Do you want to count before or after he bought his last ocean-front condo, six feet from the seas that are supposedly about to rise up and flood us all off the map?


RE: Investigations
By ClownPuncher on 5/6/2010 3:52:44 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe he has gills.


RE: Investigations
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/6/2010 5:19:48 PM , Rating: 3
No gills but pointy ears ^^ and a curly short tail and a round pink noise... let's not for get the potbelly too.


RE: Investigations
By fteoath64 on 5/8/2010 12:37:46 AM , Rating: 1
That does NOT prove a thing. It might be construed as Al trying to manipulate people's thinking like you were thinking. He can well afford the money for the condo and hardly use it!.


RE: Investigations
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/6/2010 5:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
sniff, sniff, snnniifff...

Wow if I'm not mistaken that is a very rare and fine sarcastic remark. Well crafted, excellent delivery, full of fine jabs, and a wonderful punch to it that should grab even the most naive person.

This was a most excellent sarcastic remark you have served us today Porkpie. I did not know you had such fine remarks you your cellar.

Thanks I need a pick me up... been a crappy day - slow.



RE: Investigations
By Tony Swash on 5/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Investigations
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 8:00:19 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Investigations
By Grabo on 5/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Investigations
By whiskerwill on 5/7/2010 8:59:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
We then spent 15 person days interviewing the scientists at UEA."
What kind of "investigation" talks only to the accused, and no one else?

quote:
Gah, can't you be outraged over something proper? Walmart?
Was this a joke, or just an anti-capitalist freudian slip?


RE: Investigations
By Grabo on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Investigations
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 11:21:56 AM , Rating: 5
"who should they have spoken with that they reasonably could have but didn't"

If they were going to seriously investigate subversion of the peer review process, why wouldn't they talk to at least one of the scientists who papers this group quashed from peer review?

Or how about the editor of a scientific journal who published a paper critical of global warming, only to have this group attempt to have her fired from her university professorship?

Or the peer reviewer who they lobbied to have removed from his position, because he didn't vote down a paper that didn't support their views?

Are you seriously claiming this "investigation" is valid, when they did relied solely on the testimony of the accused, all of whom unsurprisingly said "I didn't do it!"


RE: Investigations
By Grabo on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: Investigations
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 3:49:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Where's the foundation?

The investigators that said they only talked to the accused.

This is why you get voted down: Not for responding to any poster in particular, but for responding with stupid shit.


RE: Investigations
By Grabo on 5/8/2010 7:30:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The investigators that said they only talked to the accused. This is why you get voted down: Not for responding to any poster in particular, but for responding with stupid shit.


Lol. Porkpie came with a bunch of accusations above, typically without any reference.

You say they 'talked only to the accused', and so it is your burden to name someone they should have talked to and why. Preferrably with a reference. Instead all you do is parrot an empty phrase. And, 'the accused' was the entire CRU then?


RE: Investigations
By porkpie on 5/8/2010 8:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
"Lol. Porkpie came with a bunch of accusations above, typically without any reference."

Never read the actual investigation report, did you? All but one of my claims above are in the report itself:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/...


RE: Investigations
By SPOOFE on 5/10/2010 1:23:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
it is your burden to name someone they should have talked to and why.

Probably someone with knowledge of the accused that isn't among the accused. Beyond that, I find it very telling of your own bias that you would make such a ridiculous demand. I don't need to be the head detective on the case to recognize lazy investigation techniques.


RE: Investigations
By clovell on 5/7/2010 12:02:32 PM , Rating: 3
wow - nice wall of text. Are you done now? Would you care to address the question you quoted? In case you forgot in all of that rambling - here it is again:

> What kind of "investigation" talks only to the accused, and no one else?


RE: Investigations
By Grabo on 5/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Investigations
By clovell on 5/7/2010 2:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
Must have worked out okay for me, because I can at least answer a question directly, instead of forgetting about it in the midst of pointless ad hominem attacks.

Glad to see that after you got that off your chest, though, you actually gave a response.


RE: Investigations
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 3:51:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
and the 'accused' were found innocent

The accused were found to have conducted really sloppy research with questionable methods.


RE: Investigations
By Grabo on 5/8/2010 7:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The accused were found to have conducted really sloppy research with questionable methods.


Yeah, that's exactly what they found. Precisely those words.
Oxburg certainly didn't state "We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn't mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but these people were doing their jobs honestly."


RE: Investigations
By SPOOFE on 5/10/2010 1:20:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yeah, that's exactly what they found. Precisely those words.

I feel it's a fair summary of the following quotes:

"...we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganized researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention."

"We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians."

quote:
Oxburg certainly didn't state "We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn't mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but these people were doing their jobs honestly."

Oxburg was looking for evidence of illegal action. Who cares about illegal action? The concern is the research on which wide-reaching legislation (that will likely affect the lives of billions with economic costs in the trillions) is being conducted by a team that is in over their heads, conducted poorly, using questionable methods (statistics FTL), and just plain should not be trusted. It is not reliable work. I don't want anyone to go to jail, I just want accurate information before we commit to any policy.


RE: Investigations
By glennforum on 5/9/2010 9:28:43 AM , Rating: 3
Money has always been the motivator. The carbon exchanges in the UK have been directly link to organized crime and I am sure the Chicago exchange will be to. Chicago, corruption, organized crime - who would have thunk it?

Who else are you going to turn to when trying to pull off the biggest scam and fraud in the history of the world?


RE: Investigations
By elvisp on 5/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Investigations
By porkpie on 5/6/2010 2:57:44 PM , Rating: 5
" The emails show no such thing, which has now been verified by The House of Commons"

Sorry, but the investigation specifically did not address peer review tampering....nor did they even need to, since the researchers statements here are very clear. Lucky for them such acts are not crimes.

What was a crime, however, was East Anglia's refusal to comply with valid FOI requests for their data. Again, lucky for them the statue of limitations had expired by the time this came to light:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/...

BTW, one thing which the Oxburgh investigation DID find was the Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph used statistical tricks to exaggerate the rate of warming:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-...


RE: Investigations
By elvisp on 5/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: Investigations
By drycrust3 on 5/7/2010 5:33:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Science From East Anglia Scientists Is Sound . Always has been. Always will be.


The problem I have with this statement is the whole of this smacks of fraud. Why do you need to adjust data and then rig the review process if your theory is sound and your predictions are turning out to be correct? If your data is correct and your theory is correct, then the predictions you make will be found to be correct, and you theory will stand up to the review process. But if you have to rig the peer review process then that alone suggests you are afraid people will discover your theory is just a house of cards. Now add to that fiddling with the data and it becomes apparent that the theory is more important than the science or reality.

Anyway, in a sense this is all just hypothetical now because that volcano that erupted and grounded all those planes will already be causing the planet to cool.


RE: Investigations
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 7:47:48 AM , Rating: 1
"So what? They failed to meet every FOI request from every Tom-Dick-and-Harry"

A) They broke the law.
B) They didn't refuse requests from "Tom-Dick-and-Harry". They intentionally refused to provide their data or their methodology to reproduce their results to serious researchers who were skeptical of their claims...researchers who raised objections of statistical mishandling and cherry-picking of results we know now are valid.

"you fail to detail how this impacts the science from East Anglia scientists. Science that has survived the peer review process"

This isn't how science works. A theory is validated and proven by the predictions it makes, not by how many people believe in it. AGW has consistently and repeatedly overpredicted the amount of warming. In fact, we've seen no statistically significant warming whatsoever for the last 15 years, and a slight amount of cooling for the last 8 years.

But what did AGW theory actually predict would happen? Take a look at this 1988 testimony before Congress by Dr. James Hansen, head of GISS and the admitted "father" of global warming:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/...

Scroll to the last page for his future predictions. He used 3 scenarios -- Scenario A was the "business as usual" assumption where GHG emissions continued to rise exponentially. That assumption is closest to what actually happened since 1988, yet the predicted massive temperature increase failed to materialize.

Instead world temperatures actually followed most closely his "Scenario C" prediction -- which assumed the world had very slight linear increases in CO2 emissions up to the year 2000, then no future emissions after that.

In fact, world temperatures are now actually running below the Scenario C prediction of "it still continues to warm even if we stop all CO2 emissions entirely", though the trend is, for now, too short of duration to say if its statistically significant. However, the fact remains that Scenario A, which best represents what actually happened in the real word, vastly overpredicted actual warming.


RE: Investigations
By Grabo on 5/7/2010 11:18:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
In fact, we've seen no statistically significant warming whatsoever for the last 15 years, and a slight amount of cooling for the last 8 years.


You keep dragging that up, whatever it means..

Climate scientists typically consider 30-year periods, at the minimum. Over the last 30 years temps have gone up globally(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg... and in Sweden (http://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.2435!image/temp_a...

Over the last 15 years, temps have gone up too, globally as in Sweden. In fact ,"Since 1988 every year except one has been warmer or much warmer than the average for 1961-1990" (Swedish Meteorological Inst.)


RE: Investigations
By sigilscience on 5/7/2010 11:27:23 AM , Rating: 3
Do you have a link to any "data" not from rabid AGW believers?

Read Climate Audit sometime. GISS and NOAA threw out 75% of all station readings, including all the ones that showed cooling. Strangely enough they kept sites next to barbecue pits, hot air vents, and other locations guranteed to show warming.


RE: Investigations
By Grabo on 5/7/2010 1:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
Arguing here on this side of this subject is a lost cause, sure, so I must be stupid.

Nevertheless, since the Swedish National Institute of Meteorology as well as NASA (and quite frankly every other meteorology /climate institute I can find) are apparently 'rabid AGW believers', I must ask where you get your numbers from? Do you believe in any climate scientist at all? And I'm the one getting downrated...lol

And that GISS and NOAA accusation is also funky. According to NASA as well as GISS, they...ah never mind, what's the point. Clearly they put all the stations inside volcanoes.


RE: Investigations
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 2:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
"Nevertheless, since the Swedish National Institute of Meteorology as well as NASA ..."

Not NASA. NASS GISS ...which is James Hansen and a few of his followers in a building at Columbia University.

BTW, India's newly formed National Climate Institute say they "cannot rely on" the IPCC's conclusions:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...

And Belgium's Royal Meteorological Society has issued a statement saying CO2 effects have been 'grossly overstated'.

But none of this really matters. Science isn't based on consensus. It's based on hard evidence....and that's just what AGW lacks.


RE: Investigations
By Grabo on 5/8/2010 8:11:19 AM , Rating: 3
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, of around 31000 members- most of which are involved in the production of petroleum- changed their stance on global warming in 2007, including expressing a support for climate research:

The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_...

And you know what else?

Assessments of the current scientific opinion on climate change = These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states <AGW is your GOD Porko! Kneel!>

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007. Some organisations hold non-committal positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

quote:
Not NASA. NASS GISS ...which is James Hansen and a few of his followers in a building at Columbia University.

? Show me any 'concrete evidence' that their current data is false. About GISS:
GISS is a component laboratory of Goddard Space Flight Center's Earth Sciences Division, which is part of GSFC's Sciences and Exploration Directorate.

Are they '2 guys in a closet, one of which is Mad Dr Hansen'? (which seems to be what you are saying?)

No.
GISS works cooperatively with area universities and research organizations, most especially with Columbia University. Many of our personnel are members of Columbia's Center for Climate Systems Research (CCSR) or Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics. We also collaborate with researchers at Columbia's Earth Institute and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

So the entire University of Colombia is corrupt? As well as all of NASA? In cahoots with the Swedish Meteorological Institue of course? As well as the UK Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policyma... - 8 of the 10 warmest years on record are 20** years )) and of course the World Meteorological Organisation, since they get data from stations designated by them?

I haven't found anything about India's 'National Climate Institute', but their Institute of Tropical Meteorology writes " The concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxide has been substantially increasing with a rapid growth in recent decades. This is resulting in global Climate Change due to radiative forcing. " -> http://www.tropmet.res.in/static_page.php?page_id=...

quote:
And Belgium's Royal Meteorological Society has issued a statement saying CO2 effects have been 'grossly overstated'.


Where? When? Surely you aren't referring to this debacle(2007 study made by amongst others Luc Debontridder)?
-> http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2008/12/inhofes-...

""CO2 isn't the big cause of global warming" is what newspaper HLN concluded. " A complete misrepresentation ", climatologist Luc Debontridder of the RMI says."


RE: Investigations
By SPOOFE on 5/10/2010 1:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
changed their stance on global warming


quote:
The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change,

Internal inconsistency. I think you need to either read your cites before citing them, or learn the difference between "global warming" and "carbon dioxide increase".


RE: Investigations
By Arc177 on 5/7/2010 10:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
Okay. Science is not conducted by adjusting data to suit your hypothesis. More especially it is not conducted by fabrication of data either. You have clearly not read the emails nor the code that was released. In total their behavior was and continues to be reprehensible and illegal. If an accountant decides to start filling the books with made up numbers this is called fraud, this case is no different. It is absolutely not science and in fact calls into question anyone who collaborated with them and any work that has foundation with HadCRU and in addition it likely invalidates those works- say goodbye to your precious IPCC reports.
If you by chance happen to have a science degree please send it back- you have failed to earn it. Your version of science is straight out of Disneyland, pure imagination…unfortunately for you reality trumps Disney.
Elvisp you are either wholly incompetent a liar or an idiot. Perhaps you stand to gain from this CAGW charade? If not you can join the "useful idiot" category, if yes you are simply another snake oil salesman like Mr Gore and deserve to be thrown in the clink with the rest of the lot.


RE: Investigations
By Starcub on 5/7/2010 11:26:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Again, you fail to detail how this impacts the science from East Anglia scientists. Science that has survived the peer review process - and further examination as well from multiple sources.

Interesting what one can do with half truths isn't it? I'm guessing that the reason the data itself survived the peer-review process is the fact that the "trick" involved throwing away tree ring derivations in favor of measured data. It appears the report only critisizes the scientists for failing to consult statiticians, but doesn't critisize the report's findings.

In essence, it seems the actions of the scientists have been vindicated by all investigators, and that their fault was in not allowing non-climate scientific experts to examine their data and present their opinions so that they could be officially put to rest in the peer review process.


RE: Investigations
By clovell on 5/7/2010 11:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
Only? This field is heavily dependent on advanced statistical metholodgy, theory, and concepts. Indeed, without these statistical tools, the field would simply not exist.

To claim that the only fault here was that these experts didn't consult with folks outside the field is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The irony of is that none of these researchers are actually experts in the field of statistics, and yet many folks seem to think it awkward to allow statisticians to weigh in on climatology concerns when the climatologists used research, theory, and methodology far outside their field of expertise to extrapolate their conclusions.

The report & investigations are not sufficient to understand, in detail, how the data handling techniques and statistical methodologies employed actually influenced the results. There were no sensitivity analyses performed in the investigation, so there could not be any critiques of its conclusions.


RE: Investigations
By Starcub on 5/8/2010 11:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The irony of is that none of these researchers are actually experts in the field of statistics, and yet many folks seem to think it awkward to allow statisticians to weigh in on climatology concerns when the climatologists used research, theory, and methodology far outside their field of expertise to extrapolate their conclusions.

I have a degree in electrical engineering and was required to take a course in statistical analysis as part of the core curriculum. I knew enough to determine that if I wanted good statisitical confidence in my data that I should repeat my experiments or expand my data set -- that I would have no problem consulting a statitician for if I couldn't figure out myself what I needed. However, if the statitician tried to tell me what data were relevent to the conduct of my experiment, then I would have a problem. The fact that nobody is critisizing the report itself still tells me that the main problem is that certain people are upset that they weren't involved in the process.

It seems most likely that some people were deemed by the scientific community as counter productive and thus excluded. That the science itself has been exhonerated in the review processes tell me that the scientists were probably correct in their analysis. The scientists were critisized by the reviewers for not following rules which would have delayed the progress of the science but were nonetheless a requirement. Some in politics and the media seem intent on turning this into a criticism of AGW science -- and they are upset that they can't get it to stick.


RE: Investigations
By porkpie on 5/8/2010 11:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
" However, if the statitician tried to tell me what data were relevent to the conduct of my experiment, then I would have a problem."

Huh? The statistician on the panel criticized the statistical methods used, and said they were inappropriate and exaggerated the results. He didn't make value judgements about their choice of proxies.

Other people on the panel called the ACU's handling of data "reprehensible", and that they had intentionally tried to hide data which represented declining temperatures.

"That the science itself has been exhonerated in the review processes"

Huh? The review didn't even attempt to judge "the science itself". It merely investigated whether the ACU scientists engaged in intentional fraud and distortion.

" The fact that nobody is critisizing the report itself"

Huh? The report itself has seen countless reams of criticism.

Why don't you actually sit down and read the report sometime. It's rather shocking:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/...


RE: Investigations
By Starcub on 5/10/2010 11:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Huh? The statistician on the panel criticized the statistical methods used, and said they were inappropriate and exaggerated the results. He didn't make value judgements about their choice of proxies.

Are you saying that the statitician was a panel member? On what panel? Rather it seems as though a statitcian critisized data that evidently is outside his field of expertise. As the panel concluded in the report (which you linked):
quote:
7. Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones’s use of the word “trick” is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity. The balance of evidence patently fails to support this view. It appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data. (Paragraph 60)

If you read the report you would know that the "neat" method referred to as a 'trick to hide the decline' was the discarding of data determined through scientific analysis and collaboration by climate scientists (as opposed to this statitician) to be erroneous.
Furthermore, in the follow up investigation performed by actual scientist, the report for which is linked in the topic article, the panelists had this to say:

quote:
3. Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results. The published work also contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their
interpretation.

and:
quote:
8. After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid.

and:
quote:
1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

In other words the panel of scientists found that what the statitician claimed to be a fault of the UEA CRU scietists was not the case, rather the scientists used appropriate though dated methods. The panel's criticism of the use of faulty techniques was levied at other climate science researchers whom they did not specifically identify in the report.

That the statitician which the CRU scientists excluded from the debate might have been acting disingenously as the CRU scientists claimed seems evident in the scientific report as well:
quote:
9. We have not exhaustively reviewed the external criticism of the dendroclimatological work, but it seems that some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU.


quote:
Huh? The review didn't even attempt to judge "the science itself". It merely investigated whether the ACU scientists engaged in intentional fraud and distortion.

You mean the CRU scientists? Again what report are you referring to? Even with regards to the preliminary non-scientific panel, that's not entirely true. Again quoting verbatim from the report which you linked to:
quote:
5. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified. (Paragraph 51)

The panel admitted that they didn't have the expertise necessary to do a full and comprehensive analysis of the science itself. However, they did do a comparative analysis of the results and conclusions reached by the CRU with those of other independent sources. It was this analysis that they used as the basis for claiming that, in their view, the science is sound. Therefore it should be obvious that the recommendation of the panel for a more extensive review of the data was not made because they viewed the data used by the CRU scientists to be in error. Instead, the panel felt it was important to find independent reviewers who were more qualified than they were to review the science in order to establish public trust in the science.

Moreover, the science itself was exhonerated in the follow up report issued by an independent panel of scientists. Did you read that report?

I should point out as well that it seems the appearent FOIA violations made by the scientists were not really the fault of the scientists themselves, but rather were necessary due to restrictions imposed upon them as a precondition for being given the data in the first place:

quote:
3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in government.


So the CRU scientists addmission that data probably should be made more readily available is a criticism more appropriately levied at the governments that were attempting to restrict access to and profit from what was most likely taxpayer/govt funded activity.

quote:
Huh? The report itself has seen countless reams of criticism.

Obviously. I meant from credible sources -- people who were both officially qualified for and charged with the task of investigating the allegations: climate skeptics.

I didn't mean that the reports hadn't recieved criticism from people who were prone to selectively quoting from them to support their own preconcieved notions of the reports' contents or its conclusions: climate denialists.


RE: Investigations
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 12:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Are you saying that the statitician was a panel member? On what panel?"

Yes, David Hand, President of the Royal Statistical Society, man called Britain's most preeminent statistician. He was a member of the Oxburgh Panel. He is the one who said the Hockey Stick used inappropriate methods to exaggerate the extent of warming.

And note that Hand here is not criticizing the quality of the data itself. If Mann and his cronies used incorrect or imprecise data, that would be a further confounding factor that would make the results even less accurate (and, as researchers other than Hand have pointed out, that's exactly what Mann did...though this isn't Hand's particular field to comment on).

Further note that the British press has reported that a computer fed random data will, when processed by Mann's algorithm, output a Hockey Stick graph as a result.

quote:
"I should point out as well that it seems the appearent FOIA violations made by the scientists were not really the fault of the scientists themselves, but rather were necessary due to restrictions imposed upon them as a precondition for being given the data in the first place:"


Oops, no this is incorrect. While that was one of the many excuses offered for not sharing external data, the fact remains the scientists refused to provide their own data and methodology on many cases. In fact, the FOI Act (which the British Goverment has already said the ACU scientists were guilty of violating) refers specifically only to data and results generated with tax dollar funding.


RE: Investigations
By Starcub on 5/11/2010 12:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, David Hand, President of the Royal Statistical Society, man called Britain's most preeminent statistician. He was a member of the Oxburgh Panel. He is the one who said the Hockey Stick used inappropriate methods to exaggerate the extent of warming.

Interesting that they would put the chief complaintant on a supposedly "independent" review panel. However, it would be consitent with the stated objective of the preliminary review panel: to re-establish confidence in the science. I note that the panel still found no wrongdoing on the part of the CRU scientists, and that Dr Hand was mistaken in his accusation.
quote:
Further note that the British press has reported that...

...aliens have abducted the queen? Really, I don't believe 80% of what I read in the American press, why should I trust the British press when a panel of independent scientists have already exhonerated the work of the UEA CRU.
quote:
Oops, no this is incorrect. While that was one of the many excuses offered for not sharing external data, the fact remains the scientists refused to provide their own data and methodology on many cases. In fact, the FOI Act (which the British Goverment has already said the ACU scientists were guilty of violating) refers specifically only to data and results generated with tax dollar funding.

As the report points out, virtually all of the CRU's data was external:
quote:
The Unit does virtually no primary data acquisition
but has used data from published archives and has collaborated with people who have collected data.

Now if the CRU were to share their data and methods with people who were not part of the agreement they made to obtain the original data, even if they didn't provide the original raw data, the CRU would be giving the requester what they would need to determine the raw data, and thus could possibly be found liable for breach of contract.

The panel laments, and I concur, that this is a serious problem. Scientific data, especially data compiled from publically funded sources should be freely available upon request. However, this is an international problem that needs a political solution, it's not the fault of the CRU.


RE: Investigations
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 3:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It appears the report only critisizes the scientists for failing to consult statiticians

And for sloppy data management. If nothing else, we should ignore the CRU's findings based on their clumsy handling of information. Would you trust a soldier that couldn't hold his gun steady? Would you trust a truck driver that can't keep his vehicle between the lines?


RE: Investigations
By TheDoc9 on 5/6/2010 3:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
I know it can be difficult, but type in "Lord Oxburgh carbon trading" in google, then click the first link.

hint: it's titled "Lord Oxburgh - FP Comment"


RE: Investigations
By ekv on 5/6/2010 6:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
just in case you don't use Google ... [I use Startpage, by ixquick, no IP tracking]

I think this is what you were referring to

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id...

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id...

You'll have to search the page...
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/02/305418.html

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/705-lord-oxburg...

were there other links?


You are a terrible journalist
By y0ssar1an on 5/6/2010 8:27:58 PM , Rating: 1
First, you embarrassed yourself by blowing a bunch of hot air over a phony scandal. Now you're going on the offense, sternly lecturing the scientists for not documenting their work well enough or making 100% of it public. That wasn't the scandal! A few months ago, you weren't reporting 'SCANDAL: SCIENTISTS SOMETIMES FAIL TO DOCUMENT THEIR WORK'. You were breathlessly repeating accusations that they had intentionally falsified their data. We now know those accusations were bullshit. The climate skeptics/deniers/whatever-you-want-to-call-them trolled through nine years of emails looking for quotes they could willfully misinterpret, and you reported their misinterpretations like it was a dynamite scoop. This is the point where real journalists would make some kind of apology for misleading readers, but you're still trying to blame the scientists. What a joke, how you phrase the conclusions of the investigations as a "direct challenge" to the scientists instead of a near-complete exoneration of them.

So you messed up the climategate story big time. No big deal. It happens to every journalist. As long as you apologize and make a correction, I can forgive you for that. But no! You decide to dig yourself an even bigger hole, with a related story that is 3X more bullshit than the first:

"The State of Virginia" is investigating one of the climate scientists.

Gee, doesn't that sound impressive? Except that it isn't really the state of Virginia; it's the lone, crackpot attorney general Ken Cuccinelli (visit this link for real journalism: http://www.slate.com/id/2250591/ ). The only reason Michael Mann is in the crosshairs is not because of any misconduct. It's because he unabashedly called climate deniers "idiots". Somehow that fact percolated through the conservative news channels and ended up in Ken Cuccinelli's brain, at which point he decided it was time to launch another one-man crusade.

Penn State already investigated Michael Mann on four charges. Three of them concerned scientific misconduct, which they emphatically stated he had not committed. The fourth charge was more vague: whether he had seriously deviated from protocol. On that charge, they simply found there was no evidence to support the accusation.

Of course, the climate deniers are going to blow off any investigation that doesn't support their pre-conceived conclusions. That's what they do. But clinging to this Virginia story isn't going to repair your reputation. You are a terrible journalist, Jason Mick.




RE: You are a terrible journalist
By SPOOFE on 5/6/2010 8:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
So... you're saying you don't care if the IPCC reports and numerous bits of legislation that may potentially cost trillions of dollars are based on really poor scientific study?


By sigilscience on 5/6/2010 9:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
Of course he doesn't care. How many times have you heard a GW fanatic say something like, "well even if it does turn out to be wrong, at least we'll be using less energy and polluting less".

Most of them know its a scam just as well as we do. They just don't care.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By DominionSeraph on 5/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: You are a terrible journalist
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 8:05:56 AM , Rating: 4
"These are all costs that we'd have to pay anyway -- fossil fuel reserves aren't infinite. "

This fallacy couldn't be more wrong. Did society pay an enormous "horse tax" cost in the 18th and 19th centuries? Or a "whale oil" tax to phase out its use in lighting? Or were they quickly and painlessly phased out as new technologies became more economic and practical?

"This is preferable to bankrupting the planet with an 11th hour Manhattan Project brainstorming how to maybe keep the lights on."

Thanks, but we've had the technology to "keep the lights on" without fossil fuels for half a century now. Google "nuclear" for details.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By DominionSeraph on 5/8/2010 10:18:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Did society pay an enormous "horse tax" cost in the 18th and 19th centuries? Or a "whale oil" tax to phase out its use in lighting? Or were they quickly and painlessly phased out as new technologies became more economic and practical?


Exactly how is the current level of knowledge analogous to that coming out of the Christian Dark Ages?
Geology, chemistry, and physics are pretty mature. So why are you putting all your faith in a magical discovery of some easily accessible untapped resource? Drill deeper and we are not going to find a Chemical X which will create little girls with superpowers which we can hook up to gerbil wheels to power the planet -- the universe just doesn't work that way.

Life exploited carbon because it's easy. If there was something as easy, life would have evolved to take advantage of that. So you shouldn't be holding your breath taking on faith that "God" has provided a hydrocarbon equivalent, because you need the oxygen provided by respiration to release the energy chemically stored in glucose.
Other resources are still available because utilizing them was too complex for nontechnical life. They don't give up their energy cheaply. These expenditures are a tax. You can't get around that.

You should really strive to close those gaps in your knowledge, porkpie. Leaving them open does not in fact give gods a place to work.

quote:
Thanks, but we've had the technology to "keep the lights on" without fossil fuels for half a century now. Google "nuclear" for details.


Fission is an option, but it has some nasty byproducts. If that burden must be borne, then so be it. But that has by no means been reasonably demonstrated -- research into alternative energy is still in its infancy.
And conservation tech works with all energy sources.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By porkpie on 5/8/2010 10:33:12 PM , Rating: 3
"Geology, chemistry, and physics are pretty mature"

You sound like the person who a century ago, wanted to close the patent office because "everything important has already been invented" The truth of the matter is that we've only scratched the surface of basic physics. In another century or two, we'll very likely be using some energy source no one even knows about today.

But that's irrelevant, since a) we have enough fossil fuels for the next 200 years at least, and b) even if we didn't, advanced nuclear reactors could fill all our power needs for essentially forever.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By DominionSeraph on 5/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: You are a terrible journalist
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 12:24:41 AM , Rating: 3
"That's a belief you're hanging on faith, not a demonstrated truth"

No, it's simple fact. We don't have the slightest idea what time is, or why it moves in only one direction, or what causes mass, or why the gravitional force should be so much weaker than other forces -- or even if gravity works the way we really think it does (see the Pioneer anomaly for details). We don't know why space has only 3 dimensions...or whether it actually has many more than that. We don't know why theories we think we understand like quantum field theory gives us predictions in some cases that differ by more than 100 orders of magnitude from reality (that's being off by a factor of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000X by the way)

We don't know if the universe is really inflating or not, or what caused the big band or what happened before it. We don't know what happens inside black holes, or whether they actually evaporate or not and, if they do, what happens to the information within them.

We don't understand turbulence at all, or magnetism well enough to even know if things like magnetic monopoles exist.
We don't know if the Higgs boson exists, or even know if particles like the proton are actually stable or not.

In short, we don't really have a CLUE how the universe really works. Saying we've "pretty much wrapped up basic physics" is about as ignorant a statement as coupld be possibly made.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 2:37:49 AM , Rating: 1
A third of what you wrote is, philosophically, mush.
A third just questions whether certain theories really apply to certain observations -- you're not even questioning the validity of the theories.
And the rest would likely be covered or cleared up with a GUT.

Nothing about that screams out for a paradigm shift. There's certainly nothing about it that suggests that we're all about to become wizards wielding nigh-infinite powers with the wave of a twig.

I really don't know why you're betting that, just in the nick of time, we'll discover how to manipulate the fundamental forces of nature and extract free energy. The universe is awash with forces that we can't even come close to matching on Earth, and... nothing.
Perhaps you aren't getting this: In the past, we've merely mimicked nature. For us to do these things is nothing special -- if something's been done once, it can be done again. But you're betting that, by some magical means, we will surpass the effects of every natural force -- ever.
That's not a particularly safe bet, because every form of the impossible also lies there. Because science checks itself with observations, there's NOTHING to say that there's anything BUT the impossible there.
And you're using this to support the continued use of fossil fuels and the resulting massive release of greenhouse gasses when alternatives are staring us in the face?

The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation. That's a fact.
We can use it. That's a fact.
If we don't use it, it will still emit the same amount of electromagnetic radiation. That's a fact.
So what's the problem? Not enough pseudo-science in there for you? Hello! Big ball of fusing hydrogen calling! It's not going away just because you're still sore over heliocentrism.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By Suntan on 5/11/2010 1:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing about that screams out for a paradigm shift. There's certainly nothing about it that suggests that we're all about to become wizards wielding nigh-infinite powers with the wave of a twig.


Dude, when I was a kid only futuristic space travelers had the technology to communicate with others at any point on the planet just by flipping open a lid on a little hand held device.

When my dad was a kid, most scientists were firmly of the opinion that humans would not be able to survive in space, that they wouldn’t even be able to see because their retinas wouldn’t function without gravity.

When my granddad was a kid, only birds could fly and humans could not travel to Europe at anything faster than a couple weeks. Scientists were firmly of the opinion that atoms were made up to look like “plum pudding.”

Before that humans couldn’t explain why light had properties of both particles and waves.

Heck, it has only been 300 years since some guy in a wig figured out why the apple dropped from the tree and hit him on the head.

You no what all these time periods had in common? Lay people living during those periods all thought that humanity had learned everything they would ever learn.

-Suntan


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 12:31:09 AM , Rating: 1
"Because radioactive waste is sooo preferable to solar, wind, tidal, and hydroelectric?"

Yes. Compared to the amount of radioactive waste left over from when Mother Nature created the planet, the infinitesimal amounts we generate from nuclear power are utterly meaningless.

"Why mine the stores of the Earth when the Sun is shitting out energy like it's going out of style? "

Because collecting that energy and concentrating into a useful form is not only extraordinary expensive, it actually results in more environmental damage than does a more advanced source like nuclear power.

"Hmmmm... I bet you're fat."

Nothing you say could have better demonstrated your sophomoric level of intellect. Congratulations.

"Shifting the climate, acidifying the oceans, and spouting carcinogens..."

Fortunately, most people have seen through the scaremongering on these items. The reality is that humans are better off today than every before in history. Our air and water are certainly far safer than they were 200 or even 20 years ago.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 5:46:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes. Compared to the amount of radioactive waste left over from when Mother Nature created the planet, the infinitesimal amounts we generate from nuclear power are utterly meaningless.


Ok, I'll go to bed a couple meters over good old dirt. You can go to bed over spent nuclear fuel rods... at Chernobyl. We'll see if your "meaningless amount" is in fact meaningless.

What's next? Are you going to argue that your fat ass doesn't need to drop 80 pounds because the black hole at the center of the galaxy is significantly more massive? That burning the Jews is OK because it releases less carbon dioxide than a volcanic eruption?

You really need to learn to include all relevant factors when you do your calculations. A single-axis comparison of quantities just isn't going to cut it.

quote:
Because collecting that energy and concentrating into a useful form is not only extraordinary expensive, it actually results in more environmental damage than does a more advanced source like nuclear power.


CFL's were like $20 each ten years ago. Now you can get them for a buck. When industry ramps up and items go from specialty products to mainstream, costs go down.
And nuclear waste is not safe. I can give a solar powered calculator to a child. You cannot give a child a spent fuel rod without going to prison for a very long time. There's a reason for the difference.
Centralized solar collection has some environmental impact, but it's not "20,000 years of concentrated ionizing radiation generated smack-dab in the middle of the biosphere" impact.
Why deal with the mess of high level radioactive waste when it's unnecessary to make it? Leave that to the people of a few hundred years from now, if they don't have fusion by then. The option of, "burying it in the ground," isn't going to go away, and perhaps they'll have a better way of dealing with it then.

quote:
Nothing you say could have better demonstrated your sophomoric level of intellect.


I'm amusing myself with tangential lines of thought because your line just isn't a challenge. So I pondered whether your promotion of conspicuous consumption led back to a psychological schema that was perhaps broader than that one expression. Overeating would be a rather obvious line of similar expression.

Take the combination of America's obesity rates and you naming yourself after a food product, and even if I'm wrong about the shared aspect above, there's still a good chance you're fat.

:D

quote:
Fortunately, most people have seen through the scaremongering on these items.


The same people who watch pro wrestling and think it's real. Perception so keen I think I'm bleeding.

No, just crying.

Evolution is a conspiracy. The age of the Earth is a conspiracy. The moon landings were a conspiracy. The safety of vaccines is a conspiracy. Water floridation is a communist plot. Chem-trails. The government planted explosives in the WTC. The Fed allowing banks to borrow means the dollar is worthless. Obama is a secret muslim. The health care bill is gonna kill grandma. You work for the government until April 9th. Terri Schiavo was murdered. The Navy downed TWA flight 800.

A group of stupid people disagreeing with the experts does not suggest a counter-expertise. It's just stupid people being stupid because they're so stupid they think they're smart, and so their stupidity has no restraints.
Goddamn liberal "I'm ok, you're ok," teaching techniques. Stupid people should be told they're stupid, and to shut the hell up.

quote:
The reality is that humans are better off today than every before in history.


Poor nations are overpopulated and rife with disease. The wealthy nations are rife with social/mental/emotional problems.

We need high tech to get off this planet, but we haven't evolved to fit in the support structure of a high tech society. We build things to cater to impulses which then addict us. (TV, internet, texting.)

Economic wealth does not mean happiness. A food supply sufficient for population so great that everything else is in scarce supply certainly doesn't, either.

Meh, I think it's a wash.

quote:
Our air and water are certainly far safer than they were 200 or even 20 years ago.


And solar/wind power will change this how?


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 12:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Ok, I'll go to bed a couple meters over good old dirt."

If you live in a New England or Rocky Mountain state, your "good old dirt" will contain massive amounts of radioactive thorium, uranium, and potassium. The first meter of topsoil in your average half-acre backyard in one of these states will contain over 7,000 pounds of these radioactive isotopes.

" I can give a solar powered calculator to a child. You cannot give a child a spent fuel rod"

A solar calculator generates a few milliwatts. A fuel rod will generate several Gigawatt-hours of electricity. Can you give a child the vast amounts of toxic waste generated by mining and refining the resources needed to build and maintain a Gigawatt-size solar plant?

There's a wide, wide river flowing between you and the land of logic. Care to borrow a boat?


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 9:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you live in a New England or Rocky Mountain state, your "good old dirt" will contain massive amounts of radioactive thorium, uranium, and potassium. The first meter of topsoil in your average half-acre backyard in one of these states will contain over 7,000 pounds of these radioactive isotopes.


Oooh, some U-238, Th-232, and a smidge of K-40. Because that's the same thing as cesium-137 or strontium-90.

I do live in New England. So now it's your turn to sleep over that bed of spent nuclear fuel rods at Chernobyl!

quote:
Can you give a child the vast amounts of toxic waste generated by mining and refining the resources needed to build and maintain a Gigawatt-size solar plant?


Support your assertion of, "Vast amounts of toxic waste."
Name names and amounts.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By porkpie on 5/10/2010 11:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
"Oooh, some U-238, Th-232, and a smidge of K-40. Because that's the same thing as cesium-137 or strontium-90."

Yes it is...it's all alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. It doesn't matter what nucleus it springs from, all that matters is the total activity level. Radon is a particularly dangerous radiation source in New England (as well as many other places around the world)...Radon levels in some houses have been found to be many tens of thousands of times higher than what an accident like Three Mile Island would expose you to, even had you lived right beside the reactor.

But keep your irrational fear if it helps you to sleep at night. Luckily, the rest of the nation is finally wising up.


By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 11:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you off rebutting the arguments of the peasants of the 1970's?

Deal with my argument. I have no interest in your strawmen.


By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 11:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a hint: Assume you're intellectually inferior to me. When you interpret something I've said as stupid, conclude that that is the result of your own failing to grasp my brilliance, and try again.

Things will go much smoother once you start thinking up. It's really annoying to have to run around corralling the stray lines that your model of an average (ie stupid) mind has led you to believe I've taken. I am not average, so prune them.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 4:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Better for the government to act ahead of the curve and give us us some consumer choice rather than industry waiting 'till $20/gal gas prices and everyone being stuck on mopeds.

History says otherwise. Government manipulation of the market has caused far more trouble than good. Conversely, $20/gal for gasoline would be WILDLY successful at encouraging people to use fewer fossil fuels.

quote:
I really don't mind my CFLs using 1/4th the power of my old incandescents. I like the idea of LEDs that will last a lifetime. Cars running at least partially on batteries is a no-brainer -- most trips are short.

These are nice ideas that remain nice even if one assumes man's activities aren't causing global warming. I don't like arsenic in my groundwater, either, but that doesn't mean I think we should shut off all our lights and live like The Flintstones.

quote:
If we get wind, tidal, and solar costs down to commercially viable levels now when energy is cheap due to readily available fossil fuels, guess what we get when the costs of fossil fuels rises?

If gas goes up to $20/gal, then wind, tidal, and solar becomes relatively more cost effective. And I can't help but be amused that you didn't mention nuclear. Afraid of "the other N-word", eh?

quote:
This is preferable to bankrupting the planet with an 11th hour Manhattan Project brainstorming how to maybe keep the lights on.

It's a nice idea but completely unworkable. You're talking about manufacturing a need instead of addressing an actual need. No, trying to second-guess the future with pathetically incomplete data and very dogmatic loudmouths dominating the discussion is far more likely to leave us worse off than better.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By DominionSeraph on 5/8/10, Rating: 0
RE: You are a terrible journalist
By SPOOFE on 5/10/2010 1:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh yes, I am so impressed with your casual statistical sampling.

Thank you.

quote:
The government manipulates the market with everything it does, Einstein.

Not very often to the extent suggested. Government manipulation typically involves setting regulations and imposing fees should those regulations be broken. With regards to gasoline, I already described how a free market model will be far more effective at ushering in non-oil based power generation than clumsy government hands ever could.

quote:
Planting new crops after harvesting the old isn't "manufacturing a need".

People eat. Typically every day. Often several times a day. I'm surprised you haven't noticed.

quote:
Same goes for planting the seeds for a replacement to fossil fuels.

Difference being that we know crops grow. Your "replacement to fossil fuels" is nebulous at best, overblown at worst.

quote:
We are eventually going to need that harvest.

We invented that harvest in the 1940s. Again, I'm surprised you haven't noticed.


By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 6:13:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not very often to the extent suggested. Government manipulation typically involves setting regulations and imposing fees should those regulations be broken. With regards to gasoline, I already described how a free market model will be far more effective at ushering in non-oil based power generation than clumsy government hands ever could.


It regulates monopolies, advertising, food safety, drug safety, auto safety, airline safety, building safety, water quality, air quality, electromagnetic interference, holds the airwaves and airspace in the public trust, waterways, highway use, and a thousand other things. The economy incorporates them just fine.
"Clumsy" would be the Soviet system. That was unnatural as hell.

quote:
People eat. Typically every day. Often several times a day. I'm surprised you haven't noticed.

People use electricity. Typically every day. Often several times a day. I'm surprised you haven't noticed.

Way to miss the analogue, Einstein.

quote:
Difference being that we know crops grow. Your "replacement to fossil fuels" is nebulous at best, overblown at worst.


Your inability to grasp solar and wind power does not make the concepts nebulous. They're quite straightforward.

We invented that harvest in the 1940s. Again, I'm surprised you haven't noticed.
I noticed. Unlike you, I also noticed it leaves behind a 20,000 year bad aftertaste which I've taken into account.
I prefer to avoid the bad when possible, instead of being stupid.


By y0ssar1an on 5/6/2010 10:54:51 PM , Rating: 1
WTF are you talking about?! I didn't say anything about the IPCC or any legislation. You completely ignored the content of the post, made up an absurd argument, attributed it to me, and have now completely hijacked the discussion. May you rot in rhetorical hell.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By elvisp on 5/6/2010 11:36:27 PM , Rating: 1
That is simply dumb. How does anything from "climategate" - aka the scandal that wasn't - undue 40 years of climate science? You're certainly free to grab onto any disreputable argument that feeds your denial, but asserting that "climategate" obliterates the whole of climate science or represents the whole of climate science is remarkably dim.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 4:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How does anything from "climategate" - aka the scandal that wasn't - undue 40 years of climate science?

The revelation that they handled their data poorly, deliberately skewed the results, cherry-picked positive results and ignored negative results, deliberately tried to "blacklist" those that disagreed with the party line, and oh yeah, they're big mean poopie-heads, too.

But wait! They didn't rape or murder anyone! That means they're excellent scientists of unimpeachable character!


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By y0ssar1an on 5/8/2010 2:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
It's fun to make facts up, isn't it? Neither the investigations nor the emails revealed any such thing. The worst you can say is that they made a few statistical mistakes which did not ultimately change any of their conclusions. They did not deliberately skew their results. They didn't blacklist anyone. They did make fun of the politically-motivated know-nothings who harassed them, which -- surprise, surprise -- scientists do from time to time (I should know. I'm study biology. We make jokes about evolution deniers all the time).

The investigations didn't go your way, so you're sticking with your original willful misinterpretations of their emails and making-up facts about the conclusions of the investigations.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By porkpie on 5/8/2010 2:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
"It's fun to make facts up, isn't it? Neither the investigations nor the emails revealed any such thing. "

Didn't read the investigative reports, did you? Allow me to quote a few passages:

quote:
Lord Lawson [described] CRU’s treatment of the data as “reprehensible”, because, in his view, Professor Jones deliberately hid data that demonstrated a decline in temperatures.

Or this one:
quote:
We recognise that some of the e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share data, even unrestricted data, with others. We acknowledge that Professor Jones must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to seek to undermine his work. But Professor Jones’s failure to handle helpfully requests for data in a field as important and controversial as climate science was bound to be viewed with suspicion. He was obviously frustrated by other workers
in the field trying to “undermine” his work, but his actions were inevitably counterproductive.

Or this one:
quote:
The disclosed e-mails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information (disclosable or otherwise) may have been deleted, to avoid disclosure. The Deputy Information Commissioner’s letter of 29 January gives a clear indication that a breach of the FOIA may have occurred but that a prosecution was time-barred.

Or this one:
quote:
Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?

Professor Jones : That is not the case.

Graham Stringer : Why is it not?

Professor Jones : Because it has not been standard practice to do that.

Graham Stringer: That takes me back to the original point, that if it is not standard practice how can the science progress?

Professor Jones: Maybe it should be standard practice but it is not standard practice


The emails themselves are far, far worse...but if you didn't read the investigation, you surely didn't read the emails themselves.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By DominionSeraph on 5/9/2010 9:03:15 PM , Rating: 1
The lack of full disclosure when dealing with the intellectually dishonest isn't unethical. When the effort is clearly not worth the time, the time isn't required to be spent.

When dealing with a Young Earth Creationist who starts bringing up canned attacks on radiometric dating with their wild swings into retardation, in my rebuttals am I going to fully disclose by bringing up every single way that the multiple types of dating methods can go wrong, and then covering those openings by bringing up every single way that the data can be cross-checked? Basically, am I going to write an entire textbook on radiometric dating every time a Fundie comes at me with, "Carbon dating doesn't work too good on dinosaurs"? No. A Fundie will do nothing but store the data against and use it to reinforce his belief that the data against his religious belief isn't strong enough to warrant change. Complete honesty -- crapping out the entire scientific matrix of the last 200 years -- will get me nothing as his mentality disallows him from fully incorporating that data.
I can get a much clearer "win" by limiting myself to smashing only what he throws at me. If I were to add in 6 hours of me going back and forth with myself to the 5 minutes needed to address his point, it would only muddy the waters to any casual viewer.

It's just not worth it for me to put forth the effort. Any true Seeker of Truth will pick up a textbook and put their brains in gear, while those who have hardened their hearts against the truths that the Universe has revealed are beyond reaching.

See how that works?


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By SPOOFE on 5/10/2010 1:48:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's just not worth it for me to put forth the effort.

But you already put forth the effort; you posted. So you assertion is clearly not true.

Why then, would someone, who clearly thinks it was worth it to put forth the effort, claim it's not worth the effort? The only rational answer is you just plain can't respond saliently to the points raised.

In other words: It looks like you just conceded, son.


By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 6:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But you already put forth the effort; you posted.


Jesus Christ, you don't know the difference between a definite and indefinite article?


By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 6:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
For the moron:

the1 [stressed thee; unstressed before a consonant thuh; unstressed before a vowel thee] Show IPA
–definite article
1.
(used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an ): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
2.
(used to mark a proper noun, natural phenomenon, ship, building, time, point of the compass, branch of endeavor, or field of study as something well-known or unique): the sun; the Alps; the Queen Elizabeth; the past; the West.
3.
(used with or as part of a title): the Duke of Wellington; the Reverend John Smith.
4.
(used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important, most satisfying, etc.): the skiing center of the U.S.; If you're going to work hard, now is the time.
5.
(used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped.
6.
(used in place of a possessive pronoun, to note a part of the body or a personal belonging): He won't be able to play football until the leg mends.
7.
(used before adjectives that are used substantively, to note an individual, a class or number of individuals, or an abstract idea): to visit the sick; from the sublime to the ridiculous.
8.
(used before a modifying adjective to specify or limit its modifying effect): He took the wrong road and drove miles out of his way.
9.
(used to indicate one particular decade of a lifetime or of a century): the sixties; the gay nineties.
10.
(one of many of a class or type, as of a manufactured item, as opposed to an individual one): Did you listen to the radio last night?
11.
enough: He saved until he had the money for a new car. She didn't have the courage to leave.
12.
(used distributively, to note any one separately) for, to, or in each; a or an: at one dollar the pound.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By juserbogus on 5/7/2010 4:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
how the hell did you come up that conclusion!?


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 5:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
His assertion that the scandal is "phony". The scandal is very real. It just doesn't necessarily involve criminal charges.


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By elvisp on 5/7/2010 1:04:32 AM , Rating: 1
It seems you and I are the only two illuminating the fact that Mr. Mick isn't so good at eating crow! :)

Its hilarious and unsurprising to see Mr. Mick bury the six paragraphs of the actual story under a headline that represents three whole sentences of his post.

Any bets on whether he'll still use the word "climategate"? Maybe he'll continue to call them "embarassments".

Thank you for speaking up re: Mr. Mick's "journalism".


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By clovell on 5/7/2010 12:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused - if you claimed to be a leading scientist in your field and managed to screw up the scientific method, through obfuscating your methods, thereby hindering the progress of a cause you deeply believe in - wouldn't that be embarassing?

Is english your first language?


RE: You are a terrible journalist
By clovell on 5/7/2010 12:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
And you're a terrible scientist. The fundamental tenet of the scientific method is to clearly document your experiment, data, results, and conclusiions so that they can be repeated & verified and the scientific community can move on and make progress.

Obfuscating methods runs counter to the entire dynamic & spirit of science, and is, quite simply, indefensible.The media attention and admonition these scientists have recieved is well-deserved. If they don't like it, they should learn to do better next time.

Now - are you going to be okay, or should I call you a WAAAAAHHHHHBULANCE?


By y0ssar1an on 5/8/2010 3:18:45 PM , Rating: 1
Documentation is clearly important, but no scientist I know documents absolutely everything they do. It doesn't matter. No amount of documentation will ever satisfy the climate deniers. They'll always be claiming that the experiment is invalid because the scientist failed to provide the make and model of the computer that recorded the data. That's the kind of bullshit we have to deal with in biology, even though it's been 100 years since any credible biologist had any doubts about the overall validity of evolution. You can see why biologists definitely have empathy for the climate scientists right now.

As for obfuscation, you haven't provided any evidence that they intentionally obfuscated anything. So I suggest you back up that claim or withdraw it.


hah
By Chiisuchianu on 5/6/2010 1:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
With liberalism becoming the new religion of choice for the masses, we'll be seeing a lot of scams like this in the future. It's happened a lot already but it will become even worse. Science will become the new political scene. What a tragedy.




RE: hah
By hr824 on 5/6/2010 1:49:21 PM , Rating: 1
Scams? you just read the headline didn't you.

"After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth,
we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with
integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified
selection of data are not valid. In the event CRU scientists were able to give
convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling
and statistical methodology."

You have to remember this is Daily Tech, articles are just pulled of the web and rehashed. The links are whats important.

Of course since I willing to bet you don't agree with the findings and will dismiss them as a liberal conspiracy.


RE: hah
By grenableu on 5/6/2010 2:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
It's about to snow here tonight, first time I remember it EVER doing that in May. It snowed in Baghdad last year. And the French Riviera. And a hundred other places it normally doesn't.

Personally I'm praying for global warming. It'll be a lot better than this never ending cold.


RE: hah
By erple2 on 5/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: hah
By SPOOFE on 5/6/2010 2:54:46 PM , Rating: 3
It is indeed a shame that the promoters of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis have that mentality you so accurately lampooned.


RE: hah
By jimbojimbo on 5/6/2010 3:21:01 PM , Rating: 3
Not quite true. Believers of anthropogenic global warming don't give a rats ass about the sun. It's all human's fault!! Humans are more mighty than the sun and have absolute control over the temperature of this planet!


RE: hah
By hr824 on 5/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: hah
By SPOOFE on 5/6/2010 5:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you had you would know that then suns output along with butt loads of normal cyclic behavior are well known and in fact are included in the conclusions of anthropogenic global warming.

What about water? The best greenhouse gas we know of has NEVER been included in the "butt loads" of information used to form the notion that man's industry is the primary cause behind recently observed climate change. And that's just scratching the surface with regards to the systemic flaws in the assertions.


RE: hah
By porkpie on 5/6/2010 5:31:06 PM , Rating: 2
"What about water? The best greenhouse gas we know of has NEVER been included..."

It actually is being included, but in a manner that's worse than had it simply been ignored. Climate sensitivity is calculated based on the assumption that an increase in CO2 causes slight warming, which then increases atmospheric H20, which leads to further warming. A positive feedback cycle that drastically "amplifies" the calculated warming.

Unfortunately, there's now a substantial body of experimental evidence (along with the paleoclimatic record itself) that suggests the real behavior of the climate system is negative feedback. The more you warm the planet, the more water vapor absorbs on the same wavelength bands as does CO2, and the more it acts to form albedo-increasing reflective clouds.


RE: hah
By porkpie on 5/6/2010 5:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
" If you had you would know that then suns output along with butt loads of normal cyclic behavior are well known"

While true, this statement is meaningless. The IPCC and brethren calculate only the measured changes in direct solar insolation, whereas many other solar variations can affect climate. Total insolation changes by a negligible factor, whereas changes in UV and charged particle output vary by far larger amounts -- and these effects have been postulated to have dramatic effects here on earth, such as cloud-induced albedo changes that will do far more to affect temperature than a few Watts per meter of insolation will.

Their calcuations also do not count for terrestrial thermal inertia...primarily because we have no real idea just how large it really is. But the fact remains that solar changes from long before we could accurately measure insolation may just now be showing up in the temperature record. That alone invalidates their basic premise, that the majority of 20th century warming is GHG-induced, simply because they "cannot find a better explanation". It also explains why the belief that rising sea levels fails utterly to support anthropogenic warming. Sea level has been rising for the last 20,000 years...and over most of that period, rising far faster than it is today.

But the largest nail in the CAGW coffin is simply this. Using the calculated insolation changes from Milankovitch-based variation, current climate models are utterly unable to explain the resultant climate shifts -- climate shifts we know without a doubt happened.

If the models say that a fraction of a percent change in solar output cannot explain past ice ages ... then what does? Either the models are wrong, or you must postulate some other effect that, while wholly independent of solar variability, still magically happens to happen every time the earth's orbit results in a negligible change in solar output.

Personally, I prefer Occam's razor here. The models are wrong, plain and simple. Yes, CO2 causes a minor amount of warming. But the postulated positive feedback effects (effects wholly without supporting evidence) simply don't exist. And without those effects, we can burn coal and oil for the next thousand years, and still not warm the earth enough to cause any catastrophe.


RE: hah
By hr824 on 5/7/2010 2:18:44 AM , Rating: 2
Nice try porkie but the "teach the controversy" strategy apparently adopted from creationist seems to works judging from responses to any global warming articles on this site is still just a strategy and has nothing to do with science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8


RE: hah
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 6:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Tell us more about your wild fancy notions of what constitutes "science", so we may more accurately correct the misconceptions about science that you apparently hold.


RE: hah
By SlyNine on 5/8/2010 4:48:07 AM , Rating: 2
Really, one logic class should teach you to attack the argument,not the arguer. If you didn't make it threw that what makes us think you have ANY idea what science, and cogent reasoning is about. I doubt you have any idea how to deduce real science from sophistry.statistical fallacies or how to spot an argument based on reason and logic.

Sorry dude but your reasoning and arguments are more akin to the people who believe the moon landing is a hoax. Even if the vast majority of the people believed it was fake, It'd still be real. You don't need to be experts to tell when the science is BS or not. You just need cogent thought.


RE: hah
By fic2 on 5/6/2010 5:27:36 PM , Rating: 3
You mean the data produced by climate stations with huge errors? Take a look at http://www.surfacestations.org/ and tell me why anyone should believe the data? Especially some of the worst sites at http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm. Think placing an AC unit and a BBQ pit close to a climate sensor site might add to "Global Warming"? And the U.S. data is the "best".


RE: hah
By hr824 on 5/7/2010 2:32:36 AM , Rating: 1
A NOAA is well aware where their thermometers are and B, they're looking for changes in average temperatures over time. C Stations are checked by looking at station near each other, if one is say, near a BBQ and abnormally higher then its neighbors the data is ignored until they figure out why and move it or adjust for it.


RE: hah
By whiskerwill on 5/7/2010 7:10:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
f one is say, near a BBQ and abnormally higher then its neighbors the data is ignored until they figure out why and move it or adjust for it.

This has been disproved many times by Climate Audit and the Surfacestations project. Sites near BBQ pits, air heating ducts, and blacktop parking lots ARE included.

Sites with strange anomalous warming trends are actually favored by the NOAA. The sites they throw out suspiciously are the ones which show cooling trends (and they've thrown out over 75% of the stations in North America actually)


RE: hah
By fic2 on 5/7/2010 1:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
D the nearest neighbor station is probably 100s of miles away and certainly 10s of miles away. E since 80% of those surveyed don't follow the rules for station placement how is getting bad data from one misplaced neighbor station going to improve bad data from another.

It's like all the global climate change "scientists" threw out scientific processes.


RE: hah
By elvisp on 5/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: hah
By SPOOFE on 5/6/2010 2:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a wealth of fraudulent behavior documented far-and-wide from the climate change denying crowd that stretches back for decades

Feel free to cite it, only bear in mind that, to many, the debate isn't whether or not our climate changes - it most certainly does - but whether man's activities are the primary impetus. If you want to cite Young-Earth Creationists (or whomever) that believe all existence is 6,000 years old, stagnant and unchanging, have at it... but you'll only demonstrate your own frail understanding of the issue.


RE: hah
By elvisp on 5/7/2010 12:53:28 AM , Rating: 1
Your response has nothing to do with my response to Chiisuchianu nor his original post.

I'll try anyways to bring you back into the discussion and move it forward by referencing Chissuchianu's post and my response to it: Chiisuchianu posted "With liberalism becoming the new religion of choice for the masses, we'll be seeing a lot of scams like this in the future."

My response asserted that there is far more evidence of well-documented fraudulent behavior from the climate change deniers. Neither of you can point to anything similiar in 40 years of climate change science. That includes East Anglia scientists and their science.

To believe that climate change is a scam, one has to believe in a vast gang of thousands of scientists streching back decades that have fabricated everything from sea levels to global temperatures.

Chiisuchianu's strange, unsubstantiated assertion that climate change is only the concerns of liberals or "liberalism" is folly:

In May 2008 a report comprised of federal and independent research (the IPCC, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the White House National Science and Technology Council) was released, with the George Bush Jr White House (which is comprised solely of tree hugging liberals) concluding that:

) Burning fossil fuel in power plants and automobiles is most likely responsible for global warming
) Carbon dioxide, the byproduct of burning coal and oil, has contributed most to warming in the last century
) Greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, are very likely the single largest cause of the recent warming
) Industrialization is likely to have increased the risk of heat waves in some regions and is very likely to cause ocean temperatures to warm
) Natural forces alone can't account for warming that has led to greater extremes in heat and cold, higher sea surface temperatures and more hurricanes.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/scientific-a...

Additionally, the purely liberal United States Republican Party (a.k.a The Grand Old Green Nazis), stated two years ago in its 2008 platform "The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy." http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm

Since citing denier fraud is an entire multi-page report unto itself, here's a quickie beginning: S. Fred Singer. Mr. Singer has not, ever, produced peer reviewed climate science. He has, instead, produced or participated in the "Leizpig Declaration", the "Heidelberg Appeal", "Oregon Petition" and the "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming". Google them all and read up. All, particularly the "Leizpig Declaration" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig... and the deeply fraudulent "Oregon Petition" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criti... possess a credibility that is as thin as Senator James Inhofe's birdbrain cut-and-paste quote-mined "reports". Disinformation campaigns, such as "ICE" (the "Information Council on the Environment", a failed climate change denial public relations effort) and the effort to purchase science to refute IPCC reports are also well documented - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/...


RE: hah
By redraider89 on 5/7/2010 4:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Additionally, the purely liberal United States Republican Party (a.k.a The Grand Old Green Nazis), stated two years ago in its 2008 platform "The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.


All the Republicans were saying was that they believe that human activity has increased carbon. Then they, working off of the same flawed research from East Anglia assumed the carbon was causing global warming. No one is denying that human activity is causing more carbon in the atmosphere. This just shows that liberals don't get the point of the East Anglia emails. The point is that carbon is near irrelevant in relation to global warming. What the emails show is that the data was falsified to make it look like carbon in the atmosphere was causing global warming. Data was falsified and made up to look like it is warmer than it ever has been and that is not true. Just because some in the Bush administration was scammed by these "scientists" like most everyone else was does not prove anything about man made global warming being true. Nothing at all.

The truth is there is NO warming. Why do you think they had to change their name from "global warming" to "climate change"? It's because they see there isn't warming but instead is cooling so they had to change their term to continue the scam. You who keep claiming there is are the deniers of fact. The data that everyone was banking on has been proven to be completely made up. And your anecdotal experience that it is warmer than you remember doesn't count as scientific evidence. You still believe even though the main proponent of global warming, Al Gore, just makes things up, for instance, when he claimed the earths core is several million degrees hot. The sun's surface temperature is only 9932 degrees F. in temperature and at it's core is 27 million degrees Fahrenheit. The earth's core is only
7,232.0 degrees Fahrenheit (that is much less than a million or even several million). But Al Gore claims it is almost as hot as the core of the sun,millions of degrees worth. Keep on believing this flim flam man and that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gas that every animal on the planet exhales during respiration if you want, but man made global warming is a scam.


RE: hah
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 7:30:12 AM , Rating: 2
From your own link on the investigation:

quote:
Lord Lawson describe(s) CRU’s treatment of the data as “reprehensible”, because, in his view, Professor Jones deliberately hid data that demonstrated a decline in temperatures. The data that he believed to be “hidden” are a set of tree ring data that disagree with other data sources regarding temperature trends. Lord Lawson said: “when the proxy series [...] departed from the measured temperature series, a normal person will say maybe that
means the proxy series is not all that reliable”.

In that context he made two specific claims:

• that the tree ring data were flawed because “for a long period before 1421 they relied on one single pine tree” and

• that the divergence problem was not just for data after the 1960s, “it is not a good fit in the latter half of the nineteenth century either”.

It is outside the remit of the terms of reference of this inquiry to make a detailed assessment of the science
The second bolded statement explains why this inquiry didn't follow up on such charges.


RE: hah
By porkpie on 5/7/2010 7:57:34 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Since citing denier fraud is an entire multi-page report unto itself, here's a quickie beginning: S. Fred Singer. Mr. Singer has not, ever, produced peer reviewed climate science.
You might want to tell that to the publishers of these peer-reviewed journals:

"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions", published in the International Journal of Climatology:

http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/C...

"Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends", published in Geophysical Research Letters:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0407074

"Stratospheric Water Vapour Increase due to Human Activities", published in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v233/n5321/ab...

"Global Effects of Environmental Pollution" , published in American Geophyiscal Union Transactions:

http://tris.trb.org/view.aspx?id=121478

There's quite a few more, but this should be enough to put to rest such idiocy.


RE: hah
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 4:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To believe that climate change is a scam, one has to believe in a vast gang of thousands of scientists streching back decades that have fabricated everything from sea levels to global temperatures.

Completely untrue. All that's required is the assumption that the researchers are fallible human beings capable of being biased. In a subject involving huge numbers of delicate relationships between a wide range of factors, tiny manipulations or mistakes can provide wildly divergent results.

You know nothing of human nature if you think this requires some massive conspiracy. A single charismatic person can convince thousands - even millions - to believe things that they otherwise wouldn't.


good advice
By d3872 on 5/6/2010 12:58:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
it's a direct challenge to climatologists: pursue outside expertise and carefully document your work (and make said work available to the public)


In other words, act like a scientist.




RE: good advice
By nvalhalla on 5/6/2010 1:00:01 PM , Rating: 5
"What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work..."

and none of the data that doesn't.


RE: good advice
By Duwelon on 5/6/2010 1:11:07 PM , Rating: 3
When scientists are given grants to look for evidence of an assumption like agw then we get those supposedly glorious and automatically true models because they are done with ... Computers. This whole debate stinks. The biggest mouthpiece, Al gore, refuses to debate or follow his own advice. Time after time scientists are proven they are neither Nobel or infallable so we get models that protect their future funding or just flat out line their pockets in the case f Al gore and many others.


RE: good advice
By porkpie on 5/6/2010 5:26:02 PM , Rating: 4
Read what Dick Feynman says about the Millikin oil drop experiment debacle, and you'll understand why climate scientists are generating wildly inaccurate results, without intentionally fudging their data:
quote:
It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them [over] time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is [correct].

Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of - this history - because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong - and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.

Feynman was a very intelligent man...but he was utterly wrong that modern science has eliminated this "disease". Some scientists -- especially environmental ones -- see only what they want to see.


RE: good advice
By clovell on 5/6/2010 6:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
What's become obsfucated here, is separating intent from malfeasance. Data handling techniques, while often defensible or justifiable, almost always influence results of statistical analysis via the introduction of bias. Read as: you can get away with a lot before it's called cheating.

What the investigations tell me is that techniques & methodologies were not only opaque, but also developed without the aide of professional statisticians. Which begs the question - 'How robust are these results?'. If we use a more conservative technique for handling or analyzing the data, will the conclusions change?

These kinds of tricks are usually caught in the more regulated industries, as well as in fields that closely employ statistics - quality control, manufacturing, pharmacuetical development, epidemiology, and many more. Without a statisticaly-educated peer-review base, a statistically oriented full report, analysis plan, and full raw and corrected data listings, it's very hard to put much stock in these results.

Have we honestly come to the point where we would trust the impetus for a worldwide economic revolution, and all it's collateral, based on a burden of proof that's lower than the one used to show that Claritin helps people with their allergies?


RE: good advice
By SPOOFE on 5/6/2010 6:27:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What the investigations tell me is that techniques & methodologies were not only opaque, but also developed without the aide of professional statisticians

Which just baffles me that they say the researchers "didn't do anything wrong". They did a LOT wrong. They just didn't do anything that could be described as "evil" or whatever rot.

Woop-de-doo, the guys at CRU aren't Lex Luthor-type supervillains. They're just incompetents that we should ignore.


RE: good advice
By TSS on 5/6/2010 7:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's simply inductive reasoning IMO. We assume something, build computer models to support that with values we've put in to support our conclusion and we call it science.

Hey look! Co2 and Temperature rise and fall at roughly the same rates! one must be moving the other.

Hey look! Co2 and Temperature rise and fall at roughly the same rates! Maybe we can find something that's causing this.

A small difference, but one that caused this whole mess if Al Gore didn't knowingly cause all this to make a huge profit. And a small enough one to fool people into beliving it to make a huge profit and to avoid beeing the patsy when it comes crashing down.

But honestly, did any of you really think the very people these corrupted researchers work for (which would be governments that make up the UN) would say they did anything wrong?


Good News Overral
By Makius777 on 5/6/2010 1:12:53 PM , Rating: 5
While it is still disappointing this happened at all. At least it seems some good will come from it.

Hopefully this will be a bit of a wake-up call for climatologists/scientists everywhere and re-impress upon them the need for more accurate methodology and complete transparency.

Regardless of what side of the "Global Warming" fence your on, we can all appreciate the benefit of taking great care in the collection and interpretation of data.




about time
By spepper on 5/10/2010 8:32:41 AM , Rating: 2
It's about time (and long overdue) that official government investigations into the whole Climategate thing get underway-- even if it is "only" an investigation from a state (Virginia) versus the US federal government, which sadly probably will not happen, under the current regime-- at least this will probably set a legal precedent as well as lay the groundwork for other states to follow suit, and also hopefully invalidate and nullify a majority of the EPA regulations of the current regime in charge of it.......




RE: about time
By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 10:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
There is no climategate.
Intellectuals blowing off stupid Fundies is no "-gate." It happens every day.

I am not going to expound on this because, see above.


Refund
By btc909 on 5/6/2010 8:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
So if this Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, whatever the label is this week can I get a refund?

Follow the money! Green jobs will save the United States ecomony. Arnie told me so!




Global Warming is a Hoax!
By chunkymonster on 5/9/2010 10:32:17 AM , Rating: 2
AGW is a hoax perpetuated by the world leaders to subjegate the peoples of the industrialized nations and extort tax monies to further globalization and prepetuate the New World Order agenda.

While folks bicker over whether the investigation was valid and if there was any misconduct what they are being diverted from is the science of AGW and whether world wide climate change is actually being caused by Man's influence.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and believe the truth that They want you to know and all the while being diverted from the truth, the truth that is being hidden in plain sight.




expected
By Chiisuchianu on 5/13/2010 4:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Liberals censoring science? So what else is new.




Way to bury the story DailyTech!
By elvisp on 5/6/10, Rating: -1
jeeze
By juserbogus on 5/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: jeeze
By juserbogus on 5/7/2010 12:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to me (pure speculation) at some point about 2 years ago the site was targeted by organized "skeptics" to use the "voting" system to bury certain opinions based purely on politics. it certainly looks like that's the case for this article. As many of the "skeptical" messages here are voted through the roof while MOST of the scientist defenders are voted away even though some bring up good points as well. Who has that many votes... I guess I just need to create 1000 more logins to even it out?


RE: jeeze
By clovell on 5/7/2010 12:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I've got to say that though I disagree with you, I'm glad to you explained a bit more why you posted that. A lot of people here rate up things they agree with and rate down things they don't agree with.

It's not uncommon - every other voting system I've seen on the internet is the same way - even up to the point that lots of people vote without posting. I don't think it's an issue of 1000's of fake accounts voting discussions up or down.

If you've got good points - bring em up, and kep bringing em up, no matter how many times you're voted down. People will eventually notice. I've made tons of wildly unpopular posts here, but it doesn't bug me all that much.

Happy reading/posting!


RE: jeeze
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 4:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the site was targeted by organized "skeptics"

Now THAT'S a conspiracy theory. By asserting it, the author assumes that skeptics are so few in number that they only way they could make an appearance in any significant numbers is through organization.


RE: jeeze
By juserbogus on 5/7/2010 4:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
yes and yes... pure gossip for sure but there has been a real change in tone on this site that is quite disturbing. good arguments are now just buried with the voting system and anything that's left is very one-sided. (and my bias would also say anti-science)


RE: jeeze
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 5:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
You may indeed be describing a real phenomenon; however, another explanation may simply be that the facade presented by these key global warming researchers is crumbling and more people are starting to wonder if their tidy little tale has any merit.

But I guess it is far more likely that there's only a half-dozen AGW skeptics in the world, and they all hang out at Dailytech.


RE: jeeze
By DominionSeraph on 5/11/2010 12:09:10 AM , Rating: 2
The pattern of voting on climate change topics doesn't seem to match that of other topics.

Look at you vs. porkpie. You are both climate change deniers. You both tend to attack technical aspects. Yet he is getting 3's, 4's, and 5's while you're pretty much all 2's, even though you have some posts that are much crisper than his, and come earlier. You being snubbed kinda sticks out. If the votes were really all by different people voting for their fellow deniers, you should be carried up by the tide at least.

I get voted down even when my post is just tying off tangents obscurely through analogies or breaking up false claims of fallaciousness -- just basic housekeeping. That shouldn't trigger an emotional response in an anonymous denier. I get voted down even when I've chased someone down to a level of such specificity that the point being addressed can no longer be applied to the wider debate. Why would anyone care about an argument that's now about a point that's neither pro nor con?

And more recent posts of mine will get voted down while my previous voted-down post doesn't get another -1. Wouldn't your average denier, coming upon a post that another denier obviously thought was poor enough to bring down to a one, not spend a vote there to bring it down to zero? People don't spread their votes all over the place when it comes to reader1 -- his posts go to negative 1 in descending order. I really don't see a new visitor to the page wading through 100+ comments just to find a 2 to downvote.

I'd say that at least one of the active denier posters on here has multiple accounts.


way to waste space
By MadMan007 on 5/6/10, Rating: -1
RE: way to waste space
By Makius777 on 5/6/2010 1:29:48 PM , Rating: 4
Did you read the same article I did? About 75% of the article is quoting from either the report or members of the committee. Reporting on the findings of the investigation seems more than useful to me.

Sounds like your the one looking to incite some "flame wars".


RE: way to waste space
By MadMan007 on 5/7/2010 1:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
lol at the comment ratings, popularity contest it is then.

Yes, I read this 'article,' it is clearly you who did not - most of the article is rehashing old topics and has nothing to do with the new investigation. The reports and committees you mention are not regarding the new investigation, how you even thought that is beyond me. What part of NEW don't you understand? The first 6/9 paragraphs deal with past 'climategate' stuff, only 2 of the last 3 paragraphs even talk about the actual headline topic which is about a new investigation separate from past ones and they are very superficial - they don't even mention what the alleged 'fraud' is!

It is clear however that like all climate articles which are politicized this one got lots of views though. So, mission accomplished, yay!


RE: way to waste space
By clovell on 5/7/2010 2:16:24 PM , Rating: 3
yeah, but this is DT - that's how everything is written - rehash, rehash, rehash, rehash, rehashstorycutecomment.


RE: way to waste space
By Makius777 on 5/7/2010 6:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
Ok yes I can see what your getting at. I guess I didn't focus that much on the headline and focused more on the core of the article which was clearly about about the findings of the UEA investigation. And the blurb about Michael Mann was just that, a short mention of a related topic.

But yes your right that is a horribly inaccurate headline for the article and yes it should have been worded differently. However, in my opinion that was hardly enough to dismiss the other valuable information that was brought out in the article. But I rarely put much stock in headlines as they are very often misleading.


RE: way to waste space
By SPOOFE on 5/7/2010 6:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, in my opinion that was hardly enough to dismiss the other valuable information that was brought out in the article.

You're describing a Style Over Substance Fallacy, where one criticizes a message based on how that message is presented, not what it contains.


RE: way to waste space
By DominionSeraph on 5/9/2010 8:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're describing a Style Over Substance Fallacy, where one criticizes a message based on how that message is presented, not what it contains.


In response to that, here's an excerpt from the wikipedia article on Mongolia:

Mongolia (pronounced /m??'go?li?/; Mongolian: ?????? ??? (help·info), literally Mongol country/nation, ) is a landlocked country in East and Central Asia. It borders Russia to the north and the People's Republic of China to the south, east and west. Although Mongolia does not share a border with Kazakhstan, its western-most point is only 38 kilometres (24 mi) from Kazakhstan's eastern tip. Ulaanbaatar, the capital and largest city, is home to about 38% of the population. Mongolia's political system is a parliamentary republic.
The area of what is now Mongolia has been ruled by various nomadic empires, including the Xiongnu, the Xianbei, the Rouran, the Gökturks, and others. The Mongol Empire was founded by Genghis Khan in 1206. After the collapse of the Yuan Dynasty, the Mongols returned to their earlier pattern of constant internal conflict and occasional raids on the Chinese borderlands. In the 16th and 17th centuries, Mongolia came under the influence of Tibetan Buddhism. At the end of the 17th century, most of Mongolia had been incorporated into the area ruled by the Qing Dynasty. During the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, Mongolia declared independence, but had to struggle until 1921 to firmly establish de-facto independence from the Republic of China, and until 1945 to gain international recognition.
As a consequence, it came under strong Russian and Soviet influence; in 1924, the Mongolian People's Republic was declared, and Mongolian politics began to follow the same patterns as the Soviet politics of the time. After the breakdown of communist regimes in Eastern Europe in late 1989, Mongolia saw its own Democratic Revolution in early 1990, which led to a multi-party system, a new constitution in 1992, and the (rather rough) transition to a market economy.
At 1,564,116 square kilometres (603,909 sq mi), Mongolia is the 19th largest and the most sparsely populated independent country in the world, with a population of around 2.9 million people. It is also the world's second-largest landlocked country after Kazakhstan. The country contains very little arable land, as much of its area is covered by steppes, with mountains to the north and west and the Gobi Desert to the south. Approximately 30% of the population are nomadic or semi-nomadic. The predominant religion in Mongolia is Tibetan Buddhism, and the majority of the state's citizens are of the Mongol ethnicity, though Kazakhs, Tuvans, and other minorities also live in the country, especially in the west. About 20% of the population live on less than US$1.25 per day.[9]

Nice substance, huh?


RE: way to waste space
By SPOOFE on 5/10/2010 1:50:34 AM , Rating: 2
Pertinence and relevancy are included under the category of "substance." :D


RE: way to waste space
By DominionSeraph on 5/10/2010 6:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
Two-thirds of the article is rambling filler.

Here, I fixed it:

American Global Warming Researcher Investigated for Fraud

Several months ago, DailyTech covered news of "climategate," a massive email leak from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. In many of the leaked emails researchers discussed global warming research and made comments that sounded suspiciously close to academic misconduct.

The leak began with a bang and went out with a whimper. Phil Jones, the climatologist who headed the CRU, who was forced to temporarily step down during the investigation, was found innocent of any wrongdoing by both a government panel and an independent panel of scientists.

Even as Phil Jones prepares to resume his post at the recommendation of the independent panel, the echoes of the leak are still being heard. The State of Virginia just launched an investigation [PDF] into the work of Michael Mann, a researcher at the University of Virginia that was involved in the emails.

Mann's "hockey stick" graph became an icon for the global warming movement, and as such a point of contention for anti-global warming conspiracists. Now the state is pursuing an investigation over whether Mann engaged in fraud and deception to obtain $500,000 in state funding.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki