backtop


Print 74 comment(s) - last by jimbojimbo.. on Dec 7 at 3:40 PM


Phil Jones is stepping down as director of the the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, one of the world's leading climate research centers, after emails were released implicating him in academic misconduct.  (Source: University of East Anglia)
Director admits emails about apparent warming deception "do not read well"

The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit is one of the world's primary sources for climate data analysis and a close partner to the UN's International Panel on Climate Change.  Its researchers have published much of the work that has helped the theory of anthropogenic causation to global warming to gain acceptance in much of research community. 

Last week the CRU was the subject of a cyberattack.  Hackers released a 160 MB archive of stolen information from the center, including a number of emails from the center's director, Professor Phil Jones.

Some emails were merely embarrassing, such as Jones gloating over the death of a climate change skeptic.  Others offer signs of misconduct, with Jones appearing to carry out a campaign to remove climate skeptics from peer review boards.  The emails also show Jones discussing how he and researchers under him purposefully altered data to make warming trends seem greater -- what seems to be academic fraud.

The information in the emails has not been confirmed or denied, but the center has confirmed a leak occurred and that it is investigating the matter.  On Monday Jones announced via a press release that he would be stepping down as director while the investigations runs its course.  He says he still stands by his center's research, though, including his own.

The University's Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton supported Jones' decision to step down.  Jones said the move was necessary for the CRU to "[continue] its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible."

Supporters of warming have sought to minimize the results.  While they have not necessarily questioned the authenticity of the leaked archive, they argue that the leak is a smear campaign.  Jones has personally endorsed this theory, writing, "One has to wonder if it is a coincidence that this email correspondence has been stolen and published at this time. This may be a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks."

The leak indeed offers unfortunate tidings for proponents of climate change legislation.  With the U.S. preparing to commit to unprecedented and expensive emissions reductions at the UN Copenhagen global warming talks, members of the U.S. government are now voicing doubts.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Wisc.-R, is quoted as saying the emails "read more like scientific fascism than scientific process."  His colleague Rep. Ed Markey, Mass.-D, however complains that such criticism is merely a distraction from the "catastrophic threat to our planet."

Jones, at the center of the scandal, has made a comment that indicates the emails may be valid.  He admitted in a post that the emails "do not read well", but dismisses claims of data alteration and misconduct as mere "confusion".

A close supporter of Jones, Lord Stern, author of the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, on Tuesday looked to help the embattled climate change movement by speaking out on his views.  He says that the evidence of manmade warming is "overwhelming".  He added that all views on the topic should be heard, but that the opinions of warming skeptics might not be valid views in his estimation.  He called the skeptics "muddled and confused".

Confusion indeed seems afoot, but perhaps more at the CRU than anyplace else.  It should be noted that some researchers appear in the released emails to have not cooperated with Jones' campaign and risked their jobs to preserve their academic integrity.  Kevin Trenberth was among those who refused to participate and questioned the certainty of the CRU's conclusions on manmade warming.

The CRU has moved to silence one point of criticism.  It has agreed to publish missing land surface temperatures shortly.  The research center says that 95 percent of its data has been publicly available for "several years".  The center says that its conclusions that man is responsible for warming "correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)."

It is apt that the CRU's release mentions America's GISS as the CRU warming scandal closely mirrors the controversy over data alterations by Dr. James Hansen director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).  Dr. Hansen's data was shown to have errors both in 2007 and 2008 which exaggerated warming trends.


Comments     Threshold


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

Misconduct
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2009 1:13:46 AM , Rating: 5
Grabbing an employees ass while drunk at a Christmas party is 'misconduct'. What this man and others like him have done is help perpetuate the biggest global fraud in history. Costing untold millions of people unheard of money, prosperity, and jobs.

The man should be hung and his head displayed on a pike as an example to others.




RE: Misconduct
By TheBaker on 12/3/2009 2:26:49 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe not so much with the actual barbaric death, but metaphorically, absolutely. This guy's "temporary" resignation should be come a very permanent, very public humiliation and discrediting.

Personally, I would like to actually READ some opinions from his employees that refused to participate in the cover-up. Their statements are likely to be very enlightening.


RE: Misconduct
By FastEddieLB on 12/3/2009 2:29:27 AM , Rating: 5
His resignation is a surrender. A surrender is basically painting a big sign on himself saying "yes, we did it, my only regret is that we got caught."


RE: Misconduct
By Jabroney701020 on 12/3/2009 2:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be pretty upset if he even got a job as a janitor in a research facility.


RE: Misconduct
By Kuroyama on 12/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Misconduct
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2009 6:50:51 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
So we have a single factor (Northern Hemisphere winter) skewing the global average to make it appear flat, and his research just so happens to explain a dynamic by which warming could actually cause those colder winters.

Seriously man, get a life.

Everytime something is proved wrong...whether it be the hockey stick, or the fact that hurricanes aren't getting worse and more severe, or that my house isn't under water yet, or that Greenland is still covered in ice, or maybe even the fact that temperatures haven't increased in 10 years.....you and these other knuckleheads try to find reasons that your precious "global warming" theories aren't true. Then you go out and tell everyone that you weren't right before....because its going to be so much worse than you originally thought.

Seriously. Just stop. Its all bull and you know. Climate change...its something that's happened on a cyclical basis every hundred thousand years or so. Its always been that way. There is no "normal climate" or "normal temperature" or anything else. Just because you people think you found the one way to control us and social engineer people by fear mongering...and how you did it I don't know. No one will see the results because we'll all be dead. I don't buy it, and the rest of the population are starting to see through it too. Quit while you're ahead, and crawl back into your hole...its winter time, AGW hibernation time.


RE: Misconduct
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2009 7:26:24 AM , Rating: 5
It's called the logical fallacy of rational construction. That is where one embraces a conclusion first, and then finds evidence to support their conclusion, rather than weighing all the evidence and drawing a conclusion from it.

It is interesting to note that while the global warming ilk do this blatantly, as here, and admit it, they turn around and accuse the anti-global warming crowd of doing the same thing (to level the playing field, I guess - it really would mean neither side is right) or call them muddled and confused (I say old chap.)

This is why the creationists, who have been caught many times fabricating "evidence" accuse people who don't believe in creationism of having an atheist agenda, which makes them rational constructionists, too.

And let's not get into the ad hominim fallacies (you're wrong cause you're a d!<k), we get enough of that on DT already.


RE: Misconduct
By AlexWade on 12/3/2009 8:21:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think of it this way. A person starts with the answer, and then asks the question that will give the answer he or she desires. For example: "Man made global warming is real. How do I prove it?" Science should always start with the question, and then search for the answer to that question. For example: "Is man made global warming real? The proof says ..."


RE: Misconduct
By Lerianis on 12/3/2009 2:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it should always start with "Is this X thing real?" but many times in the past 100 years, it has NOT been that way. I can think of a psychological study (which I will not name because I will be bashed) that was the ONLY legitimate study on a certain subject, yet was universally degraded because it didn't fit what 'society' thought was the truth..... ah, hell.... I'll mention it anyway: Rind!


RE: Misconduct
By Kuroyama on 12/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Misconduct
By Kuroyama on 12/3/2009 12:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
And before you think "but that's what you meant," it's actually not what I meant. Understanding the mechanism by which less Arctic sea ice in summer (a fact) can cause colder winters is not about AGW, it's about understanding the climate. I raised it in this context of whether the current lull is a blip in an uphill trend or a hint that the trend has stopped for good. Nowhere did I mention AGW, CO2, or any such thing.

I hear the rhetoric you mention from both sides. Most of the time you say there's no global warming. But occasionally the claim is that if there is warming then it's obviously due to solar phenomenon, duh. Or maybe because the Maunder Minimum caused earlier cooling. But if it's obvious that solar activity is raising the temperature then how can it be that the temperature isn't rising? You're grasping at straws just as feverishly.

As far as whether I'm clouded by my political views, whatever those are, I rate Michael Moore and Glenn Beck at the same inability to be constructive, and likewise for Al Gore and James Inhofe's inabilities to consider a viewpoint other than their own.

But what's the point in commenting on Dailytech anyways? The people here are no more interested in separating their scientific debates from their political ones than is James Hansen.


RE: Misconduct
By lco45 on 12/3/2009 8:17:21 PM , Rating: 3
Very true.

The comments on Dailytech are some of the most intelligent I've found, and reading is always interesting.

The only flaw is that there is a tendency for the comments be either FOR or AGAINST every little opinion voiced in the articles, and to argue and argue with no-one ever changing their initial opinion.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see a comment along the lines of "Having read the previous comment I now believe I was wrong".

Still, my work day would be a lot less interesting without all you folk, and the discussion is lively if nothing else :-)

Luke


RE: Misconduct
By daInvincibleGama on 12/4/2009 1:25:39 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed. Except SOME comments on DailyTech are intelligent. There are others that just make you stop and wonder.


RE: Misconduct
By Kuroyama on 12/4/2009 11:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
Debate is good, but this site no longer has debate when it comes to climate science. When Masher started posting there was a good back and forth and several people would argue on both sides. However, now when anyone puts up an AGW post then they are immediately shot down by a dozen posts all calling them idiots, and often soon downrated to -1. It is the Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann idea of intelligent discussion.

While I will own up to phrasing my original post in a way that could be confused (putting warming deniers in the same paragraph as vaccine deniers), I did not actually say any of the things I was accused of. I merely observed that those who rabidly deny that there is any warming tend to be very anti-government types, and I could as well add that the rabid "world is ending due to AGW" types tend to be "government can fix everything" types. The posts in response to what I wrote only reaffirm my opinion in this regard. But nowhere did I actually say that one side is right or the other wrong in that first post. Indeed, I have two traits very common to my field, as a mathematician I have a bit of understanding of logic (despite claims here to the contrary) but I am rather deficient on the part of communicating things in a clear way (my words say what I mean, but are easily misread to mean more). More than a few times have my compliments of friends made them angry :(

I consider myself to be a skeptic of all sides, and rarely read partisan sites because they rarely do more than caricature the other side. But when climate scientists I know who study present day phenomenon (seasonal or annual long term forecasts) and not a political hot button issue all tell me that there is global warming (not AGW), then I take their word for it. I almost never post on climate things here because skepticism is not appreciated (albeit skepticism of anti-AGW). But as a mathematician who works in probability I am quite used to much of the phrasing in Jones' emails as it is standard terminology ("trick" and all). Perhaps he is guilty of something, but the rants here pissed me off, hence my post. Dr Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground has a good review of how the alleged misdeeds are being totally misrepresented:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comme...

Anyways, this is the last time I read this site. If Masher returns and people defer to his intelligent discussion then I would gladly read the climate articles again. But until that day I will spend my time on sites that actually have intelligent discussion. I have no desire to read MSNBC fans on HuffPo, and ditto The Fox News crowd is welcome to claim Dailytech as their domain. Good bye and good riddens (and I know many of you are thinking the same of me).


RE: Misconduct
By tedrodai on 12/3/2009 7:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously, scientists are just as prone to bias as everyone else. Does it really help your argument to say that these people truly believe in AGW?

"I suspect people who like government interference do so primarily because they believe in global warming"....yeah, that's getting us anywhere either.


RE: Misconduct
By Ammohunt on 12/3/2009 2:33:26 PM , Rating: 4
All "scientists" and their science should be suspect now especially theories that have an direct impact on the species. Political motives should be considered first


RE: Misconduct
By jimbojimbo on 12/7/2009 3:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
These scientists believe in only one thing, money. I think they've shown beyond a doubt that if you lie about the right things you can make money off it.


RE: Misconduct
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2009 7:53:49 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
So we have a single factor (Northern Hemisphere winter) skewing the global average to make it appear flat, and his research just so happens to explain a dynamic by which warming could actually cause those colder winters.

So basically you are saying that we have data that contradicts our theory, so let's discount that data to make our theory work? But its just a single factor... =(

Normally what scientists do in this situation is they modify their theory to account for the data that does not fit their now disproven theory. That is called "science." Get some.


RE: Misconduct
By rtrski on 12/3/2009 10:20:56 AM , Rating: 5
Or better yet, if you have

quote:
...a single factor (Northern Hemisphere winter) skewing the global average to make it appear flat...


...then maybe you THROW OUT ENTIRELY the use of any self-balancing 'average' statistic as meaningless and find some other metric (regional temps vs. time, seasonal-adjusted averages over time, whatever) instead of trying to massage that 'average' to enhance a pre-existing supposition.

If a few data points in your 'average' is enough to balance out an apparent trend in others, that tells me your measurement signal to noise is too low to accurately measure the long term slope vs. the local variations (let's not even get started discussing how wide the error bars on historical temp reconstructions by various proxies must be, all of which are themselves going to have the same localization effects).

Or you find and try to reduce the sources of noise with more accurate measurements. But in this case, since there's been a lot of discussion about Northern Hemisphere monitoring stations audited to be in urban heat islands, that might actually indicate the recent NA measured winter temps are all on the HIGH side compared to earlier data. Which makes that one contrary point even more 'dominant' if further noise correction is performed (it's the 'low' point, but the error is all to the high side).

The whole average world temperature graphy thingy is flawed conceptually from the very start, IMO, hokey stick or no. But I guess they needed some "global" smoking gun to justify huge research budgets and massive social engineering proposals.


RE: Misconduct
By rtrski on 12/3/2009 10:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
hah, "hokey" stick was actually a typo, but it fits quite well, doesn't it? Wish I'd done it on purpose. :)


RE: Misconduct
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2009 1:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hokey stick aside, a more significant issue is the accuracy of temperature measurement techniques over time. There are more data taken with more accurate equipment as we move forward in history. Of course, we are still not as warm as we were in the 1000's when the Vikings were farming Greenland and Iceland. Where is that Hokey stick data?


RE: Misconduct
RE: Misconduct
By invidious on 12/3/2009 8:01:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I suspect that most people who think there is no global warming do so primarily because they don't like government interference.
Not wanting your government to do your thinking for you is the exact same thing as not accepting global warming. Global warming is a political/economic adjenda that certain groups are trying to force upon the world. The link between this adjenda and actual physical phenomina is flaky at best.

The burden of proof lies on those who want to impose change, not on those who the change is being imposed upon. If you dissagree then I have some taxes I would like to levy upon you on the basis that if you don't pay me the world is going to end.


RE: Misconduct
By Lord 666 on 12/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Misconduct
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2009 8:43:07 AM , Rating: 5
Cmon, get off it. CNN had an entire panel on their first reporting of when the leaked emails got out, and their entire consensus was that not only are the emails fake and not authentic, but that even if they were global warming is still real because 2500 scientists say so.

The world has been slowly melting since the last ice age. Did you really think that living on an ice sheet would last forever? They do what every living species has done for millions of years....adapt or go extinct. For each species that goes extinct, a new species evolves. Its always been this way.

Call me crazy, but I'm fairly certain that the dinosaurs weren't driving those smug SUV's people hate so much. I'm certain the vikings would not have tolerated their electric bills to go up 3x so we can give money away for free to "poor countries" and Al Gore.

This whole global warming crap is nothing more than a political ploy for world socialism and redistribution of wealth, not to mention a "world government". Its right there in the treaty they are trying to pass. Quite simple really. There is a reason that the word "government" appears 3 times in the first paragraph of the proposed treaty.

Obviously you need to take this with a grain of salt, but this is a very logical conclusion to why the scientist would be fudging the numbers on purpose, and why the governments are rushing to create these Cap and Tax schemes before the cat gets out...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=1...


RE: Misconduct
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2009 8:51:32 AM , Rating: 3
If you don't believe that's what the treaty is really all about, then try looking into the backgrounds of the czars the for which the chosen one has appointed: Climate Czar Carol Browner, Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstien, and Science Czar John Holdren
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=1...


RE: Misconduct
By Lord 666 on 12/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Misconduct
By Reclaimer77 on 12/3/2009 11:04:22 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Even in the future (Star Trek), there is one world government.


Yeah a liberal utopia where money doesn't exist, people build huge starships and bases for the good of everyone else, poverty/disease/disparity is entirely wiped out. And people strive to be the best they can be for the good of everyone else and not themselves.

That's why it's called Science Fiction :)


RE: Misconduct
RE: Misconduct
By MozeeToby on 12/3/2009 5:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
In a world with replicators, holodecks, and unlimited power (I think each starship was said to put out more power than the sun); there is little if anything left to fight over.

Stop and think about it... anything you want can be produced in your own home in a matter of seconds with a replicator, you can experience anything (good or bad) with perfect realism (even Turing capable AI) and no risk through the holodeck. It isn't a liberal utopia, it's a technological utopia; if you live in a world with no scarcity, most human conflict doesn't make sense.


RE: Misconduct
By djkrypplephite on 12/3/2009 11:20:52 AM , Rating: 4
You've been buying the liberal line for far too long.

Outsourcing/offshoring - 1994 NAFTA is introduced, unemployment declines.

Jacob Funk Kierkegaard, a research associate at the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that 1 million people out of a workforce of approximately 150 million were part of a mass layoff in 2004 and 2005. 4 Percent of those jobs went overseas. 4 Percent. I bet you think the 'Employee Free Choice Act' gives more free choices, too.

Big government has NEVER, NEVER served the interests of the many. Find me one group who has been dependent on government welfare that has, as a whole, risen up from it, and benefited from being dependent. You won't find a single one. World government is nothing more than creating an international welfare state that is singularly sovereign and accountable to no one. We have enough problems keeping our own politicians in check, there is no way in hell we could do better with MORE government.

You, obviously being a Statist, will look for anything to justify your social engineering experiments. Find one of these massive welfare programs that have worked. Beyond that, and probably a more simple approach, is to find a world government solution that has worked. There aren't any. Where was the UN during the Rwandan genocide? Sudanese genocide? Remember when Saddam Hussein was paying off UN diplomats with oil fields so they would lift sanctions and he could continue WMD production? Bet you didn't hear about that, did you? Look it up, Duelfer Report. Stop buying everything you're spoon-fed in the media. World government cannot and will not work. There can never be one sovereign body to govern all men.

Global economy is one thing. Free trade is how we get things done. The times when capitalism don't work, is when it's not capitalism AT work. Great Depression, for example: look up the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and you'll find out why the market crashed. Then, research the New Deal and find out why we stagnated for so long. Socialism doesn't work. Never has, never will. I find it hard to believe why people still believe in it. Check out our unemployment numbers during that period:

1930- 8.9
1931- 15.9
1932- 23.6
1933- 24.9
1934- 21.7
1935- 20.1
1936- 17.0
1937- 14.3
1938- 19.0
1939- 17.2
1940- 14.6
1941- 9.9
1942- 4.7

It was the war that saved us, not socialism. FDR killed our economy, especially when the Smoot-Hawley Act was signed into law in 1930. This is, of course, in addition to the credit and money supply cuts the Federal Reserve used to slay our economic growth.

Government NEVER helps anyone or anything. Stop believing the lies you've been fed.

BTW, if aliens had been visiting Earth, they'd come to the United States. We obviously run the planet, no contest. There is no other nation comparable to our capabilities in anything; military, industry, economy, etc.


RE: Misconduct
By ClownPuncher on 12/3/2009 11:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
Some good info there, but some mistakes as well.

The stock market crashed in 1929, the Smoot-Hawley Tarrif act was written into law in 1930, therefore not causing the crash itself. Also, Smoot and Hawley were both staunch conservatives, FDR had nothing to do with it, try Herbert Hoover, also a conservative. While Hoover may have been against it, he also didn't veto it. See FDR's campaign, he also denounced it.


RE: Misconduct
By Lord 666 on 12/3/2009 12:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed that the war machine is the fastest way out of a depression/recession. I am a firm believer that GWB will be hailed a hero in the future based on deployment of troops to Iraq/Afghanistan. If the US did not have the increased military spending from 2001 to current, our economy would be much worse. Based on the recent elections, the GOP is regaining strength since change has not happened fast enough. I am not a liberal nor conservative, but a moderate.

Similar to the war machine, is the creation of green collar jobs and market for something that didn't really have a demand yet. As IT becomes more commoditized, the environmental friendly route will ensure a continued revenue stream as Mdogs pointed out globally.


RE: Misconduct
By Lord 666 on 12/3/2009 12:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
PS - Definitely not a Statist.


RE: Misconduct
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2009 1:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well that is just in your short lifetime. The earth was much warmer around 1000, and even in 1700 it was about the same temp as it is now. We actually just went through a global cooling period and are returning to where we were 300 years ago.


RE: Misconduct
By coolkev99 on 12/3/2009 8:28:33 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I suspect that most people who think there is no global warming do so primarily because they don't like government interference....


For me the arguement isn't so much if there is global warming or not, it's when people say that it's me and my fellow man are the ones causing the "warming" that's complete and utter BS.

Do you expect me to believe that ALL this hysteria over global warming has nothing to with the fact that we're told that we have completetly change the way we live our lives (and spend millions/billions) to "fix" it??


RE: Misconduct
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2009 9:08:57 AM , Rating: 5
You want to see even more complete bunk from these people? Check out this article today on the BBC showing a graph of how our CO2 levels are through the roof right now, while the rest of history for 800,000 years are much lower:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/...

Then, at the bottom of the article, which most people probably wouldn't even read, look at who they give credit to for the data in the graph:

quote:
Temperature for the last 1,500 years is taken from Mann , M.E., Zhang, Z., Hughes, M.K., Bradley, R.S., Miller, S.K., Rutherford, S., Proxy-Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric and Global Surface Temperature Variations over the Past Two Millennia, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 105, 13252-13257, 2008.

For the final time period covered, the temperature data is sourced to the Met Office Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.


Notice anything fishy here?!?!?!


RE: Misconduct
By kattanna on 12/3/2009 11:18:39 AM , Rating: 2
a good read on can be found here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_an...

i really like the 2nd page and the difference in temp graphs, the one from the original director in 1990 and the one this guy who is temp stepping aside made.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_an...


RE: Misconduct
By Globemaster on 12/3/2009 11:05:35 PM , Rating: 1
When you say they take it as fact, you seem to find that re-assuring. I find that terrifying. Why is everyone OK with the fact that we have a "Theory of Gravity", but man-made global warming must be treated as fact?

We shouldn't treat any scientific question as fact - only, at best, the current best understanding of a given process. History is littered with idiots who "knew" that the sun revolved around a flat earth, etc. I'm not even saying it's not true, maybe it is, in whole or in part, but the lack of skepticism from "scientists" is horrifying.

BTW, to dispel your stereotypes, I find the evidence for evolution to be extremely compelling & I don't see much evidence that vaccines cause autism. I run Windows XP-32, 7-64 & Ubuntu (I know, kind of weak, but I don't have enough time to deal with more complicated versions right now) on my Sager 9262 and have a Macbook Pro for short trips.

(Also, I understand that there is a law of gravity as well - how it actually manifests on Earth, but the overall explanation of how it works is a theory. My point is that AGW is treated as fact by supporters and that's terribly obnoxious and scientifically and intellectually dishonest.)


RE: Misconduct
By AlexWade on 12/3/2009 8:17:45 AM , Rating: 3
This is personal opinion. I don't think Phil Jones is resigning because it is the right thing to do. Anybody who makes millions proclaiming the end is nigh has no honor. Anybody who purposefully disobeys legally binding requests under Freedom of Information laws has no honor. So I think Phil Jones is resigning until the heat is off. Our society has short attention spans. So it won't be long before some other story comes along and Phil Jones will be out of sight, out of mind. The "investigation" will take years to come out, by then we will have moved on no matter what the results are. And Phil Jones and Michael Mann and James Hansen can continue to manipulate data and claim the end is nigh and we, the people who have a higher standard of living, are at fault.

These people have no honor. They refuse to even listen to dissenting viewpoints, violating the basic tenants of science. Only a religion is so intolerant. They are a new Catholic church with its own Spanish Inquisition and selling of indulgences. Simony was wrong when the Catholic church did and it and certainly it is wrong now when the Global Warming church sells it. If you don't agree, Torquemada will come and take away all your grant money, call you a shill of Big Oil, refuse to let your work become peer-reviewed, and then go to our friends at realclimate.org and talk about how wrong you are.

In my opinion, Phil Jones is not resigning because it is the right thing to do.


RE: Misconduct
By Yojimbo on 12/3/2009 12:11:18 PM , Rating: 1
Really? Then what should happen to g w bush? He didn't seem to respect the integrity of truth very much, and the actions he put through upholding his versions of the truth cost people lives, money, etc. There is a lot of belief going around in this AGW river of ours, but belief itself is nothing new, and if you want such consequences such as loss of jobs, lives, etc, to be linked to research mistakes and fraud, with dire judgment and actions taken against your perpetrators, then make sure you are prepared to accept these dire judgment and actions across the board whenever they are committed. Then we can really watch the heads roll. For if you don't accept these actions as the usual recourse, then you have to ask yourself why. Is it because the cost is that much greater? Well, measuring such moral cost is very difficult, as you are measuring lives against money, pain and suffering against freedom. How do you quantify? In a system where people are to be destroyed at public whim, before all the evidence is in, mind you, you will need an equally draconian method of forcing people to take on the task of researching such matters perceived to be exposed to the same vigor, because in a free system, most researchers will start passing up such opportunities. However, I have a feeling you are not inclined to take it this far, and instead you are reacting to your opposition's cries of emergency, and of the horrendous damage and destruction they say could be done by not following their assessments. You are caught up on the torrents of the river yourself, just as this man, though his singular importance of position may be much higher, might have been.


RE: Misconduct
By Lerianis on 12/3/2009 2:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
George W. Bush Jr. should be in prison right now, should have been impeached from the White House in his 5th year in office, and shouldn't be living free today or EVER.

That's the bottom line. The same thing should happen to these pseudo-scientists who started out with a conclusion and then look for only data that would support their conclusion.


RE: Misconduct
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2009 1:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm more a fan of waterboarding myself until he admits everything they did to perpetuate said fraud.


RE: Misconduct
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2009 1:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and then.....SOCK BATH!!!


misconduct
By thepianoman on 12/3/2009 9:23:12 AM , Rating: 4
I have seen so many posts repeating the same blather about science. WAY too many people keep saying science proves this or does not prove that . . .. Any first year college student can tell you that SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING . . . it merely shows likelihood beyond a reasonable doubt. In mathematics proofs are possible, science is observation AND mathematics. All people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs - "skeptics" and non-skeptics alike; but opinion and belief are not science. If we all keep these things separate, maybe we will finally get to the truth of the matter. The suggestion that fifty or sixty scientists at one college in one country have possibly been dishonest does not negate the thousands of other scientists' research . . . any more than several hundred "skeptics" misrepresenting facts with "professional" opinions or "scientific beliefs". If a person wants to post something and have credibility, they need to skip the theatrics and discuss the science.




RE: misconduct
By Ringold on 12/3/2009 3:33:09 PM , Rating: 2
The problem here is that the emails finally prove beyond any doubt what has been suspected about climate scientists all along; not all of them are noble, selfless servants of science in the manner in which you describe. Instead, they're acting out of the self interest of their careers and reputations in some cases. That global warming is a boon to these peoples careers only if it is true is the first mark against their credibility.

A first year student you mention might not be fully aware of it, but any graduate in a field that uses statistical tools would be aware that it's not impossible to selectively study or outright manipulate data in just the right way to get a pre-determined result. Thats the second strike against their credibility, as these emails prove they've been dishonest with their handling of data and statistics.

Strike three is that people who are guilty of all of the above scientific and personal indignities have also had a hand in apparently placing like-minded people on peer-review boards of journals and edging out or marginalizing individuals with actual integrity. This corrupts the process for all the hundreds or thousands of scientists that actually may be honest, and makes the whole problem systemic from the top down.

So unfortunately, its not possible to talk only of the science and the data, because Hansen has proven the data could be false and these emails have proven the statistical methods used could also be misleading. Why has such corruption taken place? Well, thats where politics and psychology come in.


RE: misconduct
By thepianoman on 12/4/2009 2:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure the word "prove" is interpreted the same by all (in the dictionary it has at least 9 meanings listed). That makes things really confusing and makes it easy to obfuscate the word and what it refers to.The emails logically speaking, prove exactly nothing. They may suggest just about anything. They are disturbing - but they "prove" nothing. And furthermore, even if global climate change is non existent, and all of the pollutants like mercury, ozone, PAH's, total petroleum hydrocarbons, sulfur, nitrites and nitrates, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide are absolutely harmless (a preposterous assumption - if you make that assumption you are truly insane) , that does not change the fact that we as a country are held hostage by oil-rich unstable nations, most of who do not like us (this is fact and needs no proof), and there is a finite amount of fossil fuel left (when China and India get into their full development we will see fossil fuel disappear very quickly). Oil companies are so wealthy they control most of the world, and when we run out we will be REALLY in big trouble. We are, in effect, fighting over where to hook a fire hose while the rest of the town burns down. The real issue is energy independence and finding and using new sources of renewable energy, and maintaining sources of non-polluted water. Let's pay scientists to do those things. If addressing climate change goes along with that then so much the better, because no matter if climate change is caused by people, or influenced by people, or not we will some day soon, run out of fossil fuel and at that point proving anything about emails or scientists will be a mute point, we (our children) will be hungry, cold or miserably hot, and suffering.


Outstanding Summary of ClimateGate
By cpeter38 on 12/3/2009 7:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
Christopher Monckton (Lord Monckton) has put together a very well written and documented summary of Climategate. You can read the summary article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-monckto...

If you would like to go more in depth, he has put together a 43 page PDF (which includes 2 pages of references and documentation) at the following location http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

If you are interested in the facts and want to be able to support your view with documentation, this is the best summary level document out there!!




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2009 7:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
But the "facts" are directly in question. Why read them again as if they are accurate?


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2009 7:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Also, I feel to muddled and confused to understand such matters today old boy. Perhaps a spot of tip and a kip and I will be ready to tackle these difficult issues.


By Mitch101 on 12/3/2009 7:48:53 AM , Rating: 3
Started out good but got so bad and cheesy toward the end it felt like one of those Disney ride movies where they show the audience as part of the movie.




By mattclary on 12/3/2009 9:40:10 AM , Rating: 3
This is an interesting read.

http://www.examiner.com/x-12465-Washington-County-...

In a nutshell, they use tree rings to determine what the past climate has been. But what they interpret the ring size to mean is different in the past than in the present, because it doesn't give them the results they want.




Climate Truth Commission
By Rmoen on 12/3/2009 12:52:05 PM , Rating: 3
The Climategate emails underscore the need for the United States to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission.

The emails strongly suggest that some of the science behind man-made global warming is not rock solid and that the scientific consensus is in part the product of silencing or marginalizing those who might upset it. So the USA must quit outsourcing its climate science to the United Nations. The UN's IPCC cannot objectively serve as judge when at the same time it advocates CO2 regulation (e.g. Kyoto Protocol).

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com




This is why...
By Schrag4 on 12/3/2009 1:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
...no matter what you do, you should always assume the whole world is reading your emails and IM's when you write them. The fact that these people would document their deception and their pure hate for those they disagree with goes to show they're not so bright after all, in my opinion.




The End of Climate Change Fraud?
By DoubleX on 12/3/2009 3:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
"tell us who much Exxon pays you to publish these"

That from a climate change zombie. Yet, how are all of these climate change scientists making their money? From selling this fear. Fear is what they sell. And they sell, as well, the ability to make true believers in these self-evident lies planet saviors. Even better, elites who rise about the immoral, intellectual inferiority of the masses to know a truth so sublime -- all the common people doubt it.

Because global warming is not happening and even these "scientists" admit it.

Not in this past decade even by CRN's account. And they threw out the raw - unsmoothed, unmanipulated data - they used to make their case for global warming at all.

No, we are not paid by the oil companies to fail to believe in something which is not happening. And you are not paid by anyone to believe a lie. Not really. You pay yourself conceit points. And your peers pay you conceit points. It is all a sick, delusional lie.

Would be nice if people grew up and stopped believing in fairy tales they know and even admit privately (at least) are untrue.

Caught in all their lies, their poor converts still are out here, trying to defend them. Is there anything more sad? Go read the emails and see what a lie you have believed. Or did you know all along, too? Most likely, both.




I'm confused...
By CrazyBernie on 12/3/2009 9:44:02 AM , Rating: 2
... so should we say he's in hot water, or cold?? 0_o




Theory and Science
By drycrust on 12/3/2009 10:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
When I saw this news break, I wasn't interested in the title tattle, I was interested in the fact they had actually predicted what the world's weather would be like over the next few years and then had found that they were wrong.
Now, at this point, this should have rung alarm bells to those involved because at the very least it suggests the model they are using is flawed, but it didn't.
Then, a few days later, I heard a scientist from New Zealand's NIWA who was implicated in this scandal call the release of the emails "mischievous", which again, seemed to me that he also missed the whole point as well: The model is flawed and he doesn't know it.
So what for the future? Well, a whole lot depends on how badly flawed the model is. What needs to happen is scientists should publish their models and the weather they expect next year. Let the best model win!




Can't wait to see this happen
By HrilL on 12/3/2009 5:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
When the climate change scientist get caught taking money from the green energy sector to make the data look like we are the cause. From what I've learn so far in life money is the only true motivator.




All for the Best in the End
By zephyrwind69 on 12/3/2009 9:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
While this may be hotly debated there's one good thing that has come as a byproduct of global warming research: increased energy independence.

Say what you will about government litigation and its effect on our nation, economy, etc. but we are facing peak oil, international instability, and energy dependence on some of the most unstable and dictatorship driven countries in the world.

If anything movement towards a higher MPG and the reduction of oil dependencies keeps us from being controlled by the middle east and Venezuela. If anything the move away from coal fired plants keeps scientifically proven mercury poisoning and birth defects away from people. The move towards solar creates a recurring energy source that pays for itself over time.

Sure, we've got coal for hundreds of years, but moving towards natural gas or solar/wind/hydro is a smart move for the health of our country and for our long-term economic health. Getting our energy independence from oil rich and corrupt nations is a good move.

If you don't do it today when peak oil starts to wind down, at some point in the next 100 years, we'll all be royally screwed up and our economy will grind to a halt. We're talking an impact 10x worse than an extra 5% of taxes. Granted to the anti's and everyone against more government-we can do this without the feds.

Move now or our pay later is my approach....don't cut back C02 just focus on energy independence!




By Gannon on 12/5/2009 9:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
... check out this video on the CRU files, I see a lot of patting each other on the back for daily tech being so "intelligent"... maybe if you like being in an echo-chamber of ignorance.

Please see a thorough analysis by someone in the know, then understand what was leaked and which most here have no idea what was being discussed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg




Al Gore responds to Climategate
By Tony Swash on 12/6/2009 8:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
See Al Gore's response to Climategate here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ymxLA5oRYI




Win
By Danish1 on 12/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Win
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2009 7:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
Hamster building floating more than imbecile over.

Dang, my Mad Lib didn't come out as well as yours almost did.


RE: Win
By djkrypplephite on 12/3/2009 11:23:52 AM , Rating: 2
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


RE: Win
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2009 1:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
But why about the cheese eaters, then? Have you ever considered they?


Yawn... another masher hit-n-run job.
By Lifted on 12/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yawn... another masher hit-n-run job.
By kyleb2112 on 12/3/2009 4:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
LOL. Nothing left for AGW fundamentalists to do but shoot the messenger. Of course you could help Barbara Boxer get to the bottom of "Email-Theft-Gate"!!!

http://polijamblog.polijam.com/?p=11748

Could keep your mind off your reality imploding.


By mdogs444 on 12/3/2009 9:37:39 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Of course you could help Barbara Boxer get to the bottom of "Email-Theft-Gate"!!!

Yeah, funny how upset Barbara is over these emails that show how much of bunk this stuff really is. Why is it she never wanted to look into "Sarah Palin Email Hacked Theft Gate"?


By mdogs444 on 12/3/2009 6:44:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
and tell us who much Exxon pays you to publish these

quote:
I honestly don't care if every article you post is 100% factual,

quote:
another masher hit-n-run job.

So tell me....how is this a hit and run job, much less funded by Exxon, if its 100% factual and has been on the news for over a week now?

Lay off the juice Lifted, that shit will kill ya.


RE: Yawn... another masher hit-n-run job.
By mattclary on 12/3/2009 9:36:38 AM , Rating: 2
Follow the money:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487039...

quote:
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.


RE: Yawn... another masher hit-n-run job.
By Vyctor on 12/3/2009 12:45:39 PM , Rating: 1
WOW! Stop the presses! A researcher is actually getting paid to do research!! Unbeleivable!! What now? Are you telling me that if all those people researching cancer are actually getting research grants that means that cancer doesn't exist? I sure feel much better now!!


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/3/2009 1:31:47 PM , Rating: 3
If the cancer researchers are falsifying their data to get more grant money, then we ought to make fun of them here on DT like this dork wad.

The implication was that he was falsifying data to get more research grants, since if he didn't falsify the data, no one would have much interest in the field to fund it, not that research scientists shouldn't get research grants. You knew that and posted to blind people to the real issue with your capital letters and exclamation marks and so-called rhetorical questions. Your father was an electric food trough wiper, and your mother smelled of elderberries!


By Jaybus on 12/3/2009 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 3
Absolutely. I have worked with scientists for most of my career. They rarely get to work on what they would choose to work on. They are in a sort of trap where they can only make a living by researching the topics some organization, government or otherwise, is willing to pay for. So it comes as no surprise to me that 2,500 scientists have accepted money to research climate change. It doesn't mean they believe it. It means they believe that's the only way they can make any money. Unscrupulous scientists know that they won't be financed again unless they tell their benefactors what they want to hear. And so they become statisticians.

Mark Twain put it best. "There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."


By rtrski on 12/3/2009 10:28:50 AM , Rating: 1
Really? I found it rather subdued. There wasn't a flaming "I TOLD YOU SO" anywhere to be found.

The implication PJ is stepping down out of a desire to hide and wait for a cool-down, vs. out of any sense of honor or rediscovered urge to embrace a more honest scientific debate vs. stacking the deck, is in the comments, not the article.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














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