backtop


Print 152 comment(s) - last by mich0311.. on Nov 28 at 11:07 PM


Hackers have released an archive of emails from a prominent UK climate research center, the CRU, which detail stunning academic misconduct and fraud concering global warming research. The emails indicate multiple researchers, including the center's director engaged in such gross academic misconduct that it makes college cheating look kosher by comparison.

The CRU describes itself as "Widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change."  (Source: University of East Anglia)
Climate researchers at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit may have intentionally and artificially skewed temperature data in studies

The field of global warming is a fascinating facet of atmospheric science.  Unfortunately, few are approaching the topic from an unbiased perspective -- the majority is dead set on proving it, while other are equally passionate about disproving it, or at least removing the implication that man may play a role in global warming.  Both sides have been found to falsify data, withhold information, or otherwise distort views on the topic, reportedly.  Notably internal investigations found that the Bush administration worked to silence climatologists at NASA who published pro-warming papers.  Likewise, James Hansen, the leading climate scientist at NASA, was found to be engaging in an equally deceptive game of altering temperature data to make warming look more serious than it was.

Now a stunning new example of biased science and policy has come to light.  The
University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, one of the UK's top climate research centers, has been hacked by an unknown party, who release an archive of the emails and data from the center, which can be viewed here.  The emails in the archive contain evidence of misconduct, casting climate research done at the center in a new light.

A spokesperson for the center confirmed the breach, stating to BBC News, "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.  This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.  We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry."

Some of the emails seem merely cruel, but do not indicate misconduct.  For example CRU director Phil Jones cheers the death of leading climate skeptic John Daly stating, "In an odd way this is cheering news."  In another email he fantasizes about physically assaulting a climate skeptic, stating, "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

Other emails are far more damning.  Writes Phil Jones:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series
for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
The email reads like a flat out confession of academic misconduct and deception.  Obviously hiding data and doctoring values is the kind of thing that gets you expelled from graduate school, but here these seasoned researchers seemed to have engaged in such practices and gleefully got published.

The emails also contain passages concerning the center's attempts to hide the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).  Writes a colleague of Mr. Jones:
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
Still other emails reveal that the Phil Jones and others at the center engaged in campaigns of trying to silence skeptics, removing them from the journal peer-review process.  Not all of the researchers at the center seemed to be onboard with the deceit, though.  Some expressed doubts about the theory of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming and refused to support some of the center's actions, putting their own careers in jeopardy.

Writes Kevin Trenberth:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
While there's been evidence of foul play among both global warming advocates and skeptics, the emails from the CRU may be the most shocking evidence of blatant misconduct to date.  The CRU was considered a prominent climate research center, which, along with other organizations in the U.S. and abroad, has helped steer the policy of the Internation Panel for Climate Change (IPCC).  The University of East Anglia described the center, writing, "Widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change."

The admissions of falsification of data and suppression of counter opinions run contrary to everything that the scientific community should stand for.  One can only hope that a thorough investigation is conducted and at the very least the center's director, Phil Jones is dismissed for academic misconduct, if the emails are confirmed.  After all, how can we tell our college students not to cheat, when the director of a prominent research institution is advocating such fraud?


Comments     Threshold


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

It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/20/2009 4:10:17 PM , Rating: 5
Trying to fit data to a result you wish to achieve is not science. It's religion. And religion bears no resemblance to reality. If you're trying to fit data to a predetermined result, you're not practicing science, you are practicing religion and you are an idiot.




RE: It's simple.
By Curelom on 11/20/2009 4:26:03 PM , Rating: 5
It's not religion. It's downright fraud!


RE: It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/20/2009 4:47:34 PM , Rating: 4
...the difference being...?


RE: It's simple.
By phattyboombatty on 11/20/2009 5:00:41 PM , Rating: 3
Man, he sure tossed you a fat one there!


RE: It's simple.
By GreenyMP on 11/20/2009 5:36:17 PM , Rating: 5
I think that the difference is that religion is about faith (believing in something you feel to be true but which you cannot prove) whereas science is supposed to be about only believing that which you can prove.

Global Warming/Climate change has become less of a scientific debate as the sides are driven more by emotion and greed. But this does not make it a religious debate. It makes it a political debate.


RE: It's simple.
By Curelom on 11/20/2009 5:58:23 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, what GreenyMP said. I figured I'd get flamed on my last comment. Fraud is when you knowingly lie and deceive to further your agenda/cause/money/power. True religon is based on faith and revelation.


RE: It's simple.
By TSS on 11/20/2009 8:41:58 PM , Rating: 4
Not to cast the first stone here, but then religion still stands as fraud. Faith does not need a religion and a religion does not need faith (just obedience).

You might have faith in the words of christ, while still rejecting the catholic church. The last time a group of people did that they decided to call themselves "protestants".

True faith is dedicating yourself to god, not other human's interpertation of god. And you can hear god just as clearly as the pope can. True religion is what we had in the dark ages, total control under the pope.

And this is comming from an atheist. Personally i think Dogma explained it pretty well.


RE: It's simple.
By callmeroy on 11/23/2009 8:24:31 AM , Rating: 5
Dogma...is that the movie that Selma Hayek was in....and looked incredibly hot in? :)

Anyway, I think the whole climate change debate has long since be blown way out of proportion. In the end it has devolved into a super hot topic and while I hate the very popular trend these days of if you speak you believe in God (or as the case with some "a" god) you are a twit, a freak, a fool, a nitwit....that all said I do think some folks hold views on climate change as close to their chests as they do religious ones...and what I mean in this context applies to EVERYONE...because everyone has a religious belief...EVERYONE......

Even NOT believing is a form of religious belief..its the belief that religion is a shame or whatever. :) So in that context I think climate change is like religion in one sense --- either you believe in it or you simply don't...there's generally not a lot of in between.

I've never meet an Atheist go...God doesn't exist..........but just in case I'll pray every day anyway....

you do or you don't.

However -- to compare the same reasons why you believe in religion and something like Climate Change is NOT the same. I'll pretty much end it there because of many reasons, some of which is as simply as being tired explaining it over and over ad infinum and in honesty, why kid and pretend we have vested interests in strangers on the Internet dictating our deep seated beliefs as if we actually give a rat's ass about one another any more than the guy that takes your order at lunch today.


RE: It's simple.
By delphinus100 on 11/25/2009 10:42:35 AM , Rating: 2
Atheism may be a philosophy, but by definition, it's not a religion.

Which doesn't mean that no one's ever been a philosophical zealot...


RE: It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/21/2009 10:45:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
True religon is based on faith and revelation.


It's impossible for a religion to be "true" beyond the irrational beliefs of the individual believer.

To wit, there are multiple religions that are variously quite similar or wildly different. Each of them espouses the view that they are the "one true" religion. Each of them espouses that other religions/gods/etc. are false.

The only way this can happen is when you have belief systems based on irrationality - meaning, the beliefs have not be rationalized against reality.

The very fact that multiple religions exist is fundamental proof that to be religious is to be irrational. To believe in something such as religion is to decieve, either yourself or others, and/or to be decieved by others. Hence, all religion is fraud.

...unless, of course, you can provide verifiable evidence to the contrary.


RE: It's simple.
By Solandri on 11/21/2009 2:13:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
To wit, there are multiple religions that are variously quite similar or wildly different. Each of them espouses the view that they are the "one true" religion. Each of them espouses that other religions/gods/etc. are false.

The only way this can happen is when you have belief systems based on irrationality - meaning, the beliefs have not be rationalized against reality.

The very fact that multiple religions exist is fundamental proof that to be religious is to be irrational.

Did you know that if you calculate the mass of an electron using classical mechanics, you get a different number than if you calculate it using quantum mechanics?

So by your argument, this would be fundamental proof that science is irrational, no? I would argue instead that the flaw of irrationality is in your argument.


RE: It's simple.
By Nightraptor on 11/21/2009 3:47:54 PM , Rating: 4
What's going on here is a fundamental clash of philosophies neither orf which can be proven scientifically or by other means. It is just a matter of ones perspective. A naturalist believes that the material is all there is while others believe that there exist things beyond the material. Both of these are hypothesis which cannot be proven scientifically. We can argue all day about which one is more "rational", but ultimately it can't be proven with mathematical certainty which is right. Ultimately both sides accept their presuppositions on faith.


RE: It's simple.
By jmarchel on 11/23/2009 8:37:38 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are wrong. From the scientific standpoint we simply do not exist. Big Bang violates all known laws of physics, therefore it could not have occured :-) Serioulsy science has one big flaw. It has to assume that either something must have been created out of nothing or something was existing "forever". The irony of this is that it is precisely a religion that "science" claims to disprove. We can shift problem to some other level pretending that this univers was created from some higher dimension unvierse, but that is just a trick of swiping the issue under the carpet. The higher dimension universe either itself must have been created out of nothing or must have "existed forever". Those "truths" has more to do with religion than with science. And at the end of the day we must assume that some basic laws of physics must exist without proof. The language of science is mathematics. And mathematics is based on axioms - postulates believed to be true without possibility of proof. How is that different in deep logical sense from traditional religion ? It might only look more "sophisticated", but if you think about it unlike religion science has zero chance to "explain" the absolute origin of the Universe. Steven Hawkings realized that years ago. He knew that scince will never be able to answer the ultimate question where all of the stuff ultimately come from.

JAM


RE: It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/23/2009 10:54:50 AM , Rating: 3
The problem you have, like others, is you keep trying to conflate science with religion - probably because you fundamentally don't know what science is, nor do you understand the scientific method.

Whether or not science ever comes up with a definitive explanation of how our universe came to be is not a prediction I can make. The difference, on that point specifically, and generally between religion and science is that science will say "don't know," "not sure," "might be something like this theory we're working on," etc. Science admits when it doesn't know something...but it keeps searching for the answer. Religion, on the other hand, just makes something up. Usually "God did it." Which is an act of abandoning the desire to learn anything at all. Why pursue any knowledge whatsoever if everything exists at God's whim? For that matter, why prosecute criminals if it was God's will that they commit crime? Can a man defy the will of God? And if he can't, how can he therefore be held responsible for his crimes, which he committed as required by God's plan? Making stuff up, like "God did it," is the ultimate slippery slope that removes any and all responsibility from anyone.


RE: It's simple.
By JediJeb on 11/23/2009 5:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
You have a good point, but from what I have learned is that a lot of the scientific method was derived by men of faith. In the begining science was used as a way to better understand how God made the universe. A person without a scientific background regardless of their beliefs will use the " don't know" answer to those things they can not understand. What existed before the universe is something so far everyone has to guess. Those that say God made it and those that can only take it back scientifically to the Don't Know point both have equally valid answers beyond the point of absolute knowledge of the event.

One can not disprove the other, faith can not disprove science and science can not disprove faith once the limit of accurate data is reached. If you look at a data point that is unknown and the answer can only be yes or no, then each answer has a 50/50 chance of being correct. Those from both sides who passionately defend their belief are ignoring the fact that they are arguing and unknown. When you argue a true unknown value, you are engaging in a totally futile process. A person of faith who attacks a person of science is as wrong as a person of science who attacks a person of faith over the things each believes. No matter how much anyone tries they can not prove or disprove the existance of God. One either believes or does not believe, there is no imperical proof that either choice is wrong.

It always amazes me how these discussions so quickly devolve into a heated argument with each side accusing the other of exactly what they are doing themselves. Those who rant and scream that the people of faith are idiots and irrational for their beliefs can no more prove for facts their own beliefs and vice versa.

On the topic of the article though, I believe that the gross neglect of following proper research techniques on both sides borders on criminal. I have made no bones about the fact that I do not believe in AGW, but I would not want to try to back up my beliefs with known false data. And if I can find data that backs up AGW that is not tainted or misinterperted then I would temper my disbelief or even change my belief if such data is convincing enough. A true scientist sets up their experiment and gathers their data and then accepts the results if they can be validated no matter the result. I deal with this kind of thing every day, and when I report data to a client and they are unhappy that is does not meet their expectations I double check it and if verified they are charged again for the analysis, if I am proven wrong they get corrected data at no extra charge. What I won't do is alter the data to make it fit expectations. For me that could mean jail time, and honestly since this climate data is some that is being used to drive internation laws, if proven data forgery was happening then there should be jail time for these people also.


RE: It's simple.
By SPOOFE on 11/23/2009 6:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a lot of the scientific method was derived by men of faith.

Because when a lot of the scientific method was derived, only men of faith had the spare time and access to resources to do any real work. Everyone else was a peasant living in filth and misery.

quote:
science can not disprove faith once the limit of accurate data is reached.

Which only describes the painfully obvious and readily-admitted shortcoming of science: It is dependant on information and the ability to access it. However, within the scope of science, faith crumbles unfailingly.

[quote] A person of faith who attacks a person of science is as wrong as a person of science who attacks a person of faith over the things each believes.[/quote]
Not true at all; I have no qualms attacking those who allow their beliefs to harm other people.


RE: It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/23/2009 7:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no qualms attacking those who allow their beliefs to harm other people.


Yes. I'm looking at you, Jenny McCarthy.


RE: It's simple.
By SPOOFE on 11/23/2009 8:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
You win the Least Substantial Post contest.


RE: It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/23/2009 7:28:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It always amazes me how these discussions so quickly devolve into a heated argument with each side accusing the other of exactly what they are doing themselves. Those who rant and scream that the people of faith are idiots and irrational for their beliefs can no more prove for facts their own beliefs and vice versa.


I don't see anyone ranting or screaming. Which may be the most surprising thing here.

However, on the side of science, we can provide you all the proof and facts you want for virtually anything. It is truly the point of science to *not* believe in anything that hasn't passed muster through the scientific method, which is wholly based on verifiable facts and evidence.

It is fundamentally disingenuous to suggest otherwise, and I believe the fact that you are trying to present science as such belies your agenda - which is to discredit science as being no better a "way of knowing" than religion.

There is, in fact, no other "way of knowing" than the scientific method, which involves formulating a theory, gathering verifiable data, testing the theory against the evidence that has been gathered to see if it can be disproved, and if not moving it forward for peer review...after which you actually know something.

Saying "God did it" is a failure in knowing anything.


RE: It's simple.
By FoxFour on 11/24/2009 1:16:51 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is, in fact, no other "way of knowing" than the scientific method, which involves formulating a theory, gathering verifiable data, testing the theory against the evidence that has been gathered to see if it can be disproved, and if not moving it forward for peer review... after which you are actually pretty sure about something .


Sorry, I had to fix that little slip for you.

;)


RE: It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/23/2009 7:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, also...

quote:
What existed before the universe is something so far everyone has to guess. Those that say God made it and those that can only take it back scientifically to the Don't Know point both have equally valid answers beyond the point of absolute knowledge of the event.


That is flat-out wrong. Science has nothing to say beyond the point of "Don't Know." That is 180 degrees away from religion, which says "God did it." Religion asserts that they *know* what happened. With not the slightest shred of evidence or reasoning to support that assertion. Science will assert nothing. Saying you know something when it is impossible for you to actually know it is fraud.

Science may offer some theory that someone came up with, like membrane theory for example, but will inform at that time that there may not actually be any way to test that theory (i.e. it's not falsifiable). And in the case that you can't present a falsifiable theory, no more science can be done - and you don't know the answer.

Asserting that God exists is not a falsifiable theory. Can't be tested. Therefore, science has no answer for whether or not God exists...but religion says that he does - just because. No reasoning, no rational thought, no evidence, no testing - trust us, he's there. There is precisely the same amount of evidence to prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is to prove the existence of God. None. And to therefore adhere to the assertion that either God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is fundamentally not science, and irrational.


RE: It's simple.
By ironargonaut on 11/23/2009 10:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
So, by your definition to believe in the big-bang is irrational. A theory was postulated and a test was derived for this theory, that the universe was expanding. Two separate teams of scientist using different methods came to the conclusion that the universe was in fact contracting. Science did not throw out the big bang theory they changed it to say it was expanding and contracting. Therefore, making it not a falsifiable theory. Can't be tested just like the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And to therefore adhere to the assertion that either Big Bang or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists is fundamentally not science, and irrational.

Your logic not mine.

So, science devises a new test and if that does not prove it they will tweak the theory again. Science changes, religion changes. At least relating to the grand origin.


RE: It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/23/2009 11:14:26 PM , Rating: 1
You lost it at "Therefore, making it not a falsifiable theory."

There's nothing more to say.


RE: It's simple.
By Hawkido on 11/24/2009 5:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Science has nothing to say beyond the point of "Don't Know."


Then how does the scientific process help us make discoveries and invent things that do not exist before you invent them?

Both of those fall into the "Don't Know" category.

World is flat, Moon is made of Cheese, Man cannot Fly, The rotating magnetic Field is Perpetual Motion and therefore cannot work...
Just to name a few. Remember just before the turn of the 20th Century Scientists claimed that they pretty much discovered all there was to know about science.


RE: It's simple.
By delphinus100 on 11/25/2009 10:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
You're allowed to form a 'hypothesis' in science, you know.

Then , if at all possible, you look for evidence to support or refute it. 'Don't know' should not be confused with 'Can't/shouldn't try to find out.'

"The most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom is: 'I do not know'"
- Brent Spiner as Commander Data, Star Trek - The Next Generation episode 'Where Silence Has Lease'


RE: It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/23/2009 7:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I would not want to try to back up my beliefs with known false data.


On this I can wholeheartedly agree with you...fraud is fraud, even if you're convinced your "heart's in the right place."


RE: It's simple.
By Hawkido on 11/24/2009 5:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
Unless all matter in this Universe has existed "forever," as in since it's inception. As Time is related to matter (Theory), if there is no matter then there is no time. The Absolute Zero theory, only instead of gasses reducing in size with the reducing of temperature until they do not exist (at 0 degrees Kelvin), you have the flow of time slowing as the quantity of matter decreases. In a time rectified system (where you equalize the flow of time and then examine the appearance of the quantity of matter) it would seem that the same amount of matter always existed.


RE: It's simple.
By Motoman on 11/21/2009 4:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
No, although that's not at all surprising that you'd try to misrepresent it that way. All you're showing is that two different theories have a slightly different value for something - which means, quite simply, that the science isn't done yet.

Compare quantum mechanics and general relativity. Both work very well on their appropriate scales, but fall apart as you try to work them together. It doesn't show some fundamental flaw in the scientific method as you try to argue - it simply shows that there is still work to be done. It would be wildly irrational to suggest otherwise.


RE: It's simple.
By Vanners on 11/23/2009 1:17:04 AM , Rating: 4
Faith is about believing something enough to put it into practise. Something that everyone on this site does daily.
Why some will be scorned for putting their faith in God by those who put their faith in man is beyond me. Who would trust man? We are known for our deceipt!
True religion comes from God, just as true knowledge does. Get it recycled and slanted by men with agendas and you no longer have true religion or true science (QED).
The principals of both true science and true religion are more similar than different:
Hear a principal, test it. If it is true the results will be evident and faith will become knowledge. This then opens new paths of faith. Repeat.
If you follow this methodology you can choose to accept the findings, or deceive yourself. If you excercise "blind faith" (belief without works) you only have yourself to blame if it turns out you were taken for a ride!


RE: It's simple.
By fifolo on 11/20/2009 7:19:29 PM , Rating: 6
Religion is tax exempt.


RE: It's simple.
By jimbojimbo on 11/23/2009 10:23:50 AM , Rating: 3
Even if it's tax exempt it can still be fraud. Scientology anyone?


RE: It's simple.
By StoveMeister on 11/23/2009 7:32:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Religion is tax exempt


AGW research is even better- Tax funded, thats like negative taxation.


RE: It's simple.
By ImSpartacus on 11/20/2009 8:41:35 PM , Rating: 5
Hmmmm, fraud can make you a ton of money? Wait a minute...


RE: It's simple.
By HueyD on 11/23/2009 8:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
Religion and faith are not necessarily the same. Many "Religious" people will proudly claim to be Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc... before they would ever consider themselves a Christian. The Christian faith is just what it is, faith in Christ and his teachings, faith in the bible and its teachings. You do not need to be religious to have faith. So in that sense the global warming believers are Religious to their "church" and have faith in their "leaders". The problem is their "leaders" claim the foundation of their "church" is science. But with science must come proof through the scientific method. This is where their foundation is flawed, they can't prove the science is true via the scientific method.


RE: It's simple.
By delphinus100 on 11/25/2009 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
Generally, fraud knows that it is fraud...


RE: It's simple.
By lightfoot on 11/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: It's simple.
By FastEddieLB on 11/20/2009 5:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
If I had the ability to uprate your post I would do so in a heartbeat.


RE: It's simple.
By DopeFishhh on 11/21/2009 8:29:57 AM , Rating: 5
While yes it looks fraudulent I should point out that they didn't confirm any specific part of the leaked information to be legitimate. So there remains the possibility that whom ever hacked and leaked the information modified or added to it.

Until an investigation happens I think it's premature to condemn them. If does get confirmed to be true however, someone should rip em a new asshole.


RE: It's simple.
By karielash on 11/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: It's simple.
By iamezza on 11/23/2009 3:04:11 AM , Rating: 2
LOL.... got any other great predictions?


RE: It's simple.
By jimbojimbo on 11/23/2009 10:25:44 AM , Rating: 5
Doubting anthropogenic global warming is instantly cast as extreme right wing? What an a-hole.


RE: It's simple.
By jnolen on 11/21/2009 1:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
The head of CRU said the e-mails "appear to be genuine": http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/...


RE: It's simple.
By islseur on 11/21/2009 3:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering who is that someone should be?


RE: It's simple.
By HueyD on 11/23/2009 9:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
posting again because I replied in the wrong chain...

Religion and faith are not necessarily the same. Many "Religious" people will proudly claim to be Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc... before they would ever consider themselves a Christian. The Christian faith is just what it is, faith in Christ and his teachings, faith in the bible and its teachings. You do not need to be religious to have faith. So in that sense the global warming believers are Religious to their "church" and have faith in their "leaders". The problem is their "leaders" claim the foundation of their "church" is science. But with science must come proof through the scientific method. This is where their foundation is flawed, they can't prove the science is true via the scientific method.


RE: It's simple.
By psychobriggsy on 11/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: It's simple.
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:17:36 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's the university of east anglia - hardly a bright light in the academic world.

The CRU is considered one of, if not THE most prominent climate change institutes in the UK.

quote:
Hopefully this will teach some of the people there that it's simply unprofessional to write some things in electronic missives.

Yeah, that's it: It's okay to commit fraud as long as you don't get caught? Nah; anyone honest will hope that this will teach some of the people there that lying anf falsifying your data is EXTREMELY unprofessional.

quote:
Still, I'm not surprised at a story like this appearing on DailyTech in the same week that six degree temperature rises were predicted by the end of this century.

Scoff. Point to a single week in the past ten years in which there weren't some ridiculous predictions about climate change over the next extended period of time.


RE: It's simple.
By ShaolinSoccer on 11/22/2009 9:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
So what you're saying is science is now to the point of being a religion so we can no longer trust science?


RE: It's simple.
By vcolon on 11/23/09, Rating: -1
Definite Proof That Jason Mick = Michael Asher?
By Fenixgoon on 11/20/2009 4:11:13 PM , Rating: 3
I just don't know what to think anymore! :D




By Jedi2155 on 11/20/2009 4:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, most of ashers articles were original.....


By deanx0r on 11/20/2009 4:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
Aww, I was reading through the article thinking Asher was back, then saw your comment and looked up. Oh shi... what the hell is going on?


By JasonMick (blog) on 11/20/2009 4:29:48 PM , Rating: 5
Obviously not, but I do respect Michael's writing and miss our debates. I admit, he made me more wary of bias in scientific field. I think that its important to note that its on BOTH sides of the debate, but that offers absolutely no excuse to either side committing such gross scientific fraud. Arguments of "it was for the greater good" sound like the weak attempt of dogmatists confronted with the illogical nature of their actions.

One can only hope that legitimate research prevails.


RE: Definite Proof That Jason Mick = Michael Asher?
By theflux on 11/20/2009 4:41:46 PM , Rating: 4
Can you at least tell us what happened to him? His sudden disappearance, and the subsequent in-out of "Michael Andrews" has been very odd indeed.


By Scabies on 11/20/2009 5:58:34 PM , Rating: 3
he got black bagged. see "V for Vendetta"


RE: Definite Proof That Jason Mick = Michael Asher?
By EglsFly on 11/20/2009 6:07:25 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, I would also like to know what happened to Masher.

Back on topic:
quote:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
It totally baffles me why in the world would so called scientists WANT the world to warm in the first place? You would think that an unbiased scientist whom studies the earth would be GLAD that the warming has stopped or receded.

You would think that true scientist would be above that and leave that kind of stuff to the politicians...


RE: Definite Proof That Jason Mick = Michael Asher?
By Scabies on 11/20/2009 6:47:02 PM , Rating: 5
their job (or the money to continue doing it) vanishes the moment people find out its a hoax. makes life a lot easier for the average joe, since the need (NEED) to be green diminishes somewhat, but it tightens the belt on the economic sectors that depend on climate alarmism.


RE: Definite Proof That Jason Mick = Michael Asher?
By cfaalm on 11/21/2009 2:03:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
since the need (NEED) to be green diminishes somewhat,


Well there is still the dependancy on oil from foreign countries with strange regimes. I'd still go on with renewable energy just to get rid of the stranglehold called oil.

Still there are glaciers dissapearing or diminishing significantly. So if it's not global warming then what is it?


RE: Definite Proof That Jason Mick = Michael Asher?
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:21:43 PM , Rating: 6
There's no reason it's not global warming; there's just no evidence that it's caused by man. The falsification lies in attempts to make temperatures correlate with rises in CO2 levels, or to hide other peaks in temperature (such as the Medieval Warming Period) that make the "man-made" rises look like statistical anomalies.

There are still a whole bunch of problems with pollution. I support a lot of "green" technologies not to try to curb global warming, but because I like air that's not filled with smog (ever go for a walk in LA in the '80s? I have. Sucked) or groundwater that's not tainted with mercury. This is one of the most nefarious aspects of the AGW movement: The notion that AGW and "pollution concerns in general" are the same issue, and they are not.


By mikefarinha on 11/22/2009 11:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'd vote you up if I had not already commented.

+1


By JediJeb on 11/24/2009 1:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you there. We should be making changes to reduce pollution and to make things more energy efficient. Not to save the planet, but because it makes sense.

The problem with the AGW agenda is it is more about power and control than saving the planet. There is only a small group that is truely sold on the idea because of their passion to save the planet. Some follow it because they believe that man is the ultimate power in the universe and that there is nothing they can not control, thus if the planet is getting warmer then man must be the cause. To them the belief that there is something they can not control frightens them. Then there is the last group that is in it for nothing more than financial gain or political power. Those are the ones that frighten me the most since once they have their money or power the rest of us are left holding the bill.


By 0ldman on 11/21/2009 12:37:20 AM , Rating: 3
I think that comment should be taken into the context that they have already banked on global warming and just realized their work is for naught.

Seems one of them has taken notice that their data isn't agreeing with their theories and has opened his eyes to look into why.

That's what I took from the comment anyway...


By Denithor on 11/23/2009 8:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
Read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.


Facts
By blowfish on 11/20/2009 4:59:27 PM , Rating: 5
The sad fact, for all those global warming enthusiasts, is that average global temperatures have fallen over the last eleven years.

Another fact - no climate research body to date has a computer model that can give any meaningful predictions of global temperature rise.

Here's another one. The majority of greenhouse gases comprise water vapour. (around 70% I believe) What do the all-global-warming-is-man-made proponents propose we do to reduce water vapour? cover the oceans?

As for carbon emissions - do those same parties have any means of preventing the massive annual forest fires in Africa?

There are far too many people making a living out of global warming alarmism, and this latest evidence of foul play and fiddling of the numbers does not come as a surprise.

Funny though how the initial write up of it on the BBC site seemed to focus on the ilegality of the hack rather than any email contents or even the reason for the hack.




RE: Facts
By phattyboombatty on 11/20/2009 5:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for carbon emissions - do those same parties have any means of preventing the massive annual forest fires in Africa?

Well, you could cut down all the forests, but then you'd be taking away a prime consumer of CO2. Kind of a catch-22 there.


RE: Facts
By MatthiasF on 11/20/2009 5:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I hate deforestation, trees don't really take up much CO2 compared to other avenues, like ocean life.

Deforestation does increase land-air temperatures, though, since each tree grows by temperature differential between air and ground. So, less trees means less temperature being pulled from the air into the ground.


RE: Facts
By jnolen on 11/21/2009 1:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I could remember what science textbook it was, but in high school I read that the ocean's consumer something like 95% of the CO/CO2 that is released into the atmosphere. And that came from an academic resource...


RE: Facts
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
I recall a similar stat that put the number at 70% or so, but that was probably about eight-ten years back.


RE: Facts
By knutjb on 11/20/2009 9:54:42 PM , Rating: 5
Global Warming isn't about saving the planet. It's about power. Create a crisis, show some visuals, who needs the truth if repeating yourself enough makes it a pseudo fact, and push guilt by intimidation to a level that would supersede an form of rational questioning. This from the same people who brought you Global Freezing in the mid seventies.

The UN wants absolute power over the world. I have a hard time giving even the slightest bit of credibility to any group who places known human rights violators in charge of their human rights commission. Who send "peace keepers" into Africa who then commit crimes equal to those who they are suppose to stop. Then it requires an outside group to pressure them into an investigation. The UN IPCC is an absolute joke. How many of their predictions have come true? They would be touting them if they did.

Power makes the world go round.


RE: Facts
By jnolen on 11/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: Facts
By knutjb on 11/23/2009 10:03:18 AM , Rating: 2
Who runs the IPCC? The UN and they have been caught stretching the numbers before. The hockey stick temp prediction chart from the IPCC that Al Gore touted so prominently in his movie was quietly replaced with one that is a little more believable, though it is still based on very flawed models based on flawed assumptions. Science isn't perfect.


RE: Facts
By BZDTemp on 11/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Facts
By BZDTemp on 11/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Facts
By Mint on 11/21/2009 12:05:29 AM , Rating: 4
Look up vapour pressure or psychrometrics.

The earth's surface is 70% water, so vapour in the atmosphere is always at equilibrium. If you boil a lake, it will cause increased rain and the vapour in the atmosphere will return to the same level fairly quickly. If you ran a bunch of dehumidifiers or planted more vegetation to take moisture out, it will be replenished by the oceans. So there's nothing anyone can do about water vapour (even covering an ocean would only change the time constant, not the equilibrium level).

I am one who believes that AGW is happening because the body of evidence is quite compelling. Most arguments against it are like yours, where you just don't know enough about science. However, in the end I'm strangely finding myself aligning myself more and more with the denialists like yourself.

The fact is that environmentalists have a HUGE hole in their argument where they jump from science to policy. If you do a proper marginal analysis (i.e. look at the *difference* that action will make rather than just look at the total impact of mankind), the cost is ridiculous for the marginal benefit. You can even use the environmentalists own numbers from IPCC or studies of AGW-related death/destruction to show that combatting AGW is horribly ineffienct way to improve the planet and humanity.

You're right about too many people making a living out of alarmism.


RE: Facts
By Jalek on 11/21/2009 5:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.
When you follow the bouncing dollars, there're just too many alternative motives out there other than true concern.

Besides, the claim that bacteria from the landers is causing the warming on Mars is just absurd.


RE: Facts
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am one who believes that AGW is happening because the body of evidence is quite compelling.

I sure hope you smiled when you wrote that; how anyone can post that in a thread about THE FALSIFICATION OF GLOBAL WARMING EVIDENCE is fascinating.

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the climate changes. There is NO evidence that hasn't suffered the taint of fraud that indicates man has had anything to do with it.

quote:
Most arguments against it are like yours, where you just don't know enough about science.

And as we've just established, a humongous chunk of the "science" has been tainted by fraud and falsification. What do YOU know about science? What do you know about peer review? How many papers supporting AGW have undergone a transparent peer review process? The number is pathetically low, and if you were as aware of the situation as you imply with the attitude of your post, you would know this.


RE: Facts
By TheEinstein on 11/22/2009 8:32:03 AM , Rating: 3
You are incorrect sir, there is not a constant amount of vapor in the atmosphere, there is a variable, which differs greatly on a number of factors.

Just go around looking for humidity readings over a 10 year span, try to find a pattern beyond the seasons... just try.

Assuming that water vapor is constant due to weather is just silliness.

Additionally your still believing in AGW when it is well within what statistics would call 'margin of error' aka the noise that is typical in all weather readings over any period of time. We are within not a margin of error however, for that would be wrongly named, but withing normal parameters.


like this surprises anyone
By FITCamaro on 11/20/2009 4:12:04 PM , Rating: 3
Enough said.




RE: like this surprises anyone
By Ristogod on 11/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: like this surprises anyone
By iDarwin on 11/20/2009 6:29:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Obviously most intelligent people understand that man isn't causing any global warming.


I would think most intelligent people would respect how little they actually know about changes in the global climate, and not make bold conclusions about man's impact on it. Unless, of course, they were to profit from those conclusions.


RE: like this surprises anyone
By PhatoseAlpha on 11/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: like this surprises anyone
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:40:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It is a matter of fossil record that mass extinctions have occurred, and also a matter of record that climate change has occurred. It is hardly a stretch to suggest that the former could be a result of the latter.

There is no significant portion of the population that thinks the climate is completely stagnant.

quote:
There is, after all, no real option to say 'We don't understand it enough, so we do nothing.' - as that actually translates to 'continue what we've been doing', and we do at least have reasons to be question whether that is wise.

Those reasons have nothing to do with the concern that man is causing global warming. AGW and pollution concerns are NOT the same thing.

quote:
Smog, for example, has clearly demonstrated then human behavior can have a marked effect on the environment on a local scale. Is the concept that it may have an effect on a global scale so farfetched we can simply ignore it?

Yes, that is far-fetched. Firstly, smog is not AGW. Lack of concern over man warming the planet does NOT equate to a lack of concern over smog. Smog describes a certain concentration of pollutants that far exceeds the concentration of CO2 that supposedly "causes" global warming. Do not conflate the two.

quote:
If the possible consequences are dire and our information is incomplete, is it not wise to err on the side of caution?

I trust you've never read the story of Chicken Little. In short: No, it is not always wise to err on the side of caution, especially when there are strong indications that the fear is a result of incomplete data or a poor understanding of the data... and MUCH MORE SO when we have indications that the data has been falsified!

quote:
As for claims of profiteering.....well, I'm sure we all know there is plenty of profiteering going on in both camps.

I haven't made a dime. Does that make me a completely objective third party?


RE: like this surprises anyone
By xxsk8er101xx on 11/21/2009 1:19:29 AM , Rating: 4
Oh you mean like Al Gore?

WTF is a carbon credit exactly? Why does Al Gore own a carbon credit company and pays his own company carbon credits and then goes off and says he offsets his carbon?

It would be like me throwing money in my jar and saying I'm buying carbon credits.


RE: like this surprises anyone
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 5:29:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
WTF is a carbon credit exactly?

They're like indulgences. You pay money and your sins are forgiven.


RE: like this surprises anyone
By FITCamaro on 11/23/2009 6:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
So can women trade sex for carbon credits like was done with indulgences?

HOT HIPPY LADIES WELCOME TO FITCAMARO'S CARBON CREDIT COMPANY!

PS - You must leave when you're done because you're far too stupid to stay.


Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By GeorgeH on 11/20/2009 9:44:07 PM , Rating: 1
Look, it's Friday - must be time for another barely accurate inflammatory DT article to keep the clicks coming over the weekend. For those who bother to check a -1 comment, please allow me to offer you a sanity check (including the filenames in the archive):

1) John Daly death -- FOIA\mail\1075403821.txt

Accurate. It's not terribly classy to cheer the death of an adversary, but neither is it rare.

2) Pat Michaels beating -- FOIA\mail\1255100876.txt

Misleading. According to the rest of the email, Michaels made the claim that Phil Jones and the CRU “willfully and intentionally "destroyed" some of the raw surface temperature data” in order to stifle attempts to duplicate dishonest results. If those allegations are both inaccurate and deliberately malicious (which the email indicates that they are) that’s the rough scientific equivalent of someone raping your wife and killing your family – private beat down fantasies are completely understandable.

3) Temp Tricks -- FOIA\mail\0942777075.txt

Possibly accurate. However, the article quote is essentially the entirety of the email. As it is standard procedure in all of science to use “tricks” to “hide” misleading data trends that would otherwise obscure your results, it is impossible to determine without more context whether or not such “tricks” and “hiding” were done to mislead or to illuminate.

4) Hiding the MWP – FOIA\mail\1054736277.txt

Completely inaccurate. Here’s an expanded quote (emphasis added):
quote:
A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal and reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature reconstructions around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years to convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally variable. ...

...Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in review--not sure it is kosher to show that yet though--I've put in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this].

Far from hiding the MWP, they want to put it in context. Further, it’s not as the reconstruction does not exist (as implied in the article), it’s that it is unavailable. That this clarification is the very next sentence after the ellipses is the most obvious example of the ridiculous and embarrassing lack of even a semblance of honesty in the article.

5) “Doubts” Putting Careers at Risk – FOIA\mail\1255532032.txt

Completely inaccurate. First, Jonathon Overpeck had nothing to do with either the quote or the emails (he wasn’t even CC’d) – but that’s a minor point. Reading the email, the participants were lamenting the lack of data that might help illuminate what was going on (“Our observation system is inadequate”) as well as engaging in a discussion of how to explain the data (not “explain”, as in provide an excuse, but “explain”, as in figure out if their model(s) do in fact fit what data they had.) An illuminating quote from the (very cordial) discussion:
quote:
to argue that the observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model projections of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing" fallacy.

I’d recommend that anyone interested read the email – it’s a very nice glimpse of how science is actually done.

Bottom line, as far as I can tell this article is almost complete nonsense. That there were “admissions of falsification of data and supression of counter opinions” as claimed in the conclusion is a complete misunderstanding at best and a deliberate fabrication at worst. With “friends” like these, AGW skeptics really don’t need enemies.




RE: Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By Goty on 11/21/2009 12:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As it is standard procedure in all of science to use “tricks” to “hide” misleading data trends that would otherwise obscure your results...


You obviously don't work in a scientific field, because this is NOT at all standard procedure.


RE: Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By GeorgeH on 11/21/2009 1:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
Denying that tricks* are very commonly used in science to hide* noise, secondary trends, random fluctuations, statistically insignificant deviations, and other effects that hinder the analysis of experimental data is, quite frankly, ignorant to an absurd degree.

*Trick – Standard vocabulary for a clever technique
*Hide – To remove from view or consideration


RE: Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 5:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
No, you are wrong. The scientific community has built a huge number of safeguards to prevent the sort of "tricks" that you describe from ever getting published. It's no surprise that the AGW-pushers have done all they can to circumvent those safeguards.

Anyway, your level of inaccuracy about the scientific community cannot be stressed enough. You are so wrong that you went all the way around to right before heading back to wrong again.


RE: Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By GeorgeH on 11/21/2009 6:24:08 PM , Rating: 3
Safeguards like publishing what tricks they used to refine their data? Absolutely; here's an example:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0067-0049/172/1/196/...

For a more instantly understandable explanation of the types of things that they're doing, here's a nice slideshow:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/0303/01-ho...

Are astronomers being dishonest by using data processing tricks to hide cosmic rays and other effects that obscure what they're trying to observe? You'd be in a very lonely crowd if you said yes. I chose Hubble data because it's about as controversial as the color beige, but the same "hiding" of irrelevant data happens in every branch of science. To suggest otherwise is, as I wrote earlier, ridiculously ignorant.


RE: Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 6:37:14 PM , Rating: 3
It's not a trick if they're telling you HOW they process their data.

All data examination must include a rigorous description of the method used to examine the data. That's an absolutely crucial element of peer review, falsification, and reproducibility.

Neither of those links indicate "tricks" anywhere near the extent of those revealed by these E-mails from the CRU. Astronomers have been absolutely clear, from the day they first started putting out images of nebulae and the like, that they use "false color" pictures to show what is otherwise nigh invisible to the naked eye. They never represent those false-color images as the actual physical appearance (to the naked human eye) of these cosmic objects.

You merely support my assertion that you know jack-all about science.


RE: Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By GeorgeH on 11/21/2009 8:29:56 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure that you fully understand what's being discussed. I'll try once more to explain; take a look at this fictitious email:
quote:

Dear Snap, Crackle and Pop,

Once Tim's got an image here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I've just completed Mike's astro trick of using SExtractor to catalog the image objects in each data set for the last 20 exposures (ie from Dec onwards) amd from Oct for Keith’s to hide local stars. Mike’s sets got the galactic eccentricity values while the others helped correct atmospheric seeing. The latter two are for Nov, while the image catalog for Oct is combined with Dec. The estimate for Dec with data through Jan nets an area average e=0.73.
Thanks for the comments, Snap.

Beyond being a crude caricature of a typical weak gravitational lensing email, the above is both completely typical and not suspect in any way.

The same goes for the substantively identical “Temp Tricks” email; there is absolutely nothing unusual about it considered by itself. For it to be at all suspicious, you’d have to demonstrate that the tricks used were known to be incorrect and/or were used to hide relevant results – and there is no evidence of that in either the “Temp Tricks” email or any of the others in the archive that I’m aware of.

Aside:
quote:
It's not a trick if they're telling you HOW they process their data.

This makes no sense at all. Apparently it needs repeating that a "trick" is nothing more than a "clever technique"* - and a process doesn't cease to be a clever technique simply because someone tells you what it was.

*And this isn't obscure jargon or slang; it's a very commonly used definition of the word:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trick


RE: Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 10:26:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm not sure that you fully understand what's being discussed.

I'm sure you're not sure; you don't seem to realize what you're saying, yourself.

quote:
Beyond being a crude caricature of a typical weak gravitational lensing email, the above is both completely typical and not suspect in any way.

It's a cute bit of creative writing, but it doesn't prove anything.

quote:
The same goes for the substantively identical “Temp Tricks” email

No, it doesn't. These leaked documents don't exist in a vacuum; there have been a series of corroborating evidences leading up to this that have created the legitimate concern about the accuracy of the methods used to derive the conclusion that industry and its CO2 emissions are the driving cause behind global warming.

quote:
This makes no sense at all. Apparently it needs repeating that a "trick" is nothing more than a "clever technique"*

Yes, but a clever technique for what? And how are those clever techniques that are A: completely transparent, B: completely superficial to the actual research being done, and C: lacking in any deceptive attempts to hide them in any way comparable to clever techniques that have been hidden from us and lied about for years? How do you not see the difference between open honesty and deceptive fraud?


By TheEinstein on 11/22/2009 8:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
Sir I am a minor scientist, field of math. No PHD, no Masters, but yes white papers. I also have been studying on my own other sciences but need to get a lab before I can truly make my own science to generate white papers. But I can follow all they can throw at me.

I can tell you this, every time I have gone over a number of papers, looking at different data sets, going over the models. I have seen the working models, and the not working.

Always the ones that do not work are AGW based. The working models are based upon Cosmic Rays aka Cosmic Radiation.

Yet we have proof that the working models were subjected to negative, organized, peer reviews. Not just a few negative reviews either.

This effort by these Global Warming 'scientists' include using politicians to silence their opponents by cutting funding, using media to ridicule their opponents and to hype theirs, by cutting out peer review organizations which had any negative reviews at all, and by hiding and isolating the science.

I have had these damned green nuts even say that doubters must show 100% of their data in one breath, including source, and such, and then must go away, then in the next breath say CRU data is protected by agreements but we should trust in the results of their science.

When a set of people using Google map can show more ice in the Artic than scientists were finding, when you can go and find proof some glaciers are growing, when some scientists say ALL are shrinking, when you see Farmers Almanac provide better weather prediction than the CRU, when you can see proof in the weathering of mountains that things do slowly change, when you can sit on an average day and in less than 10 seconds the temp has changed more than what the IPCC claims will happen in 10 years... then AGW has NO CASE AT ALL.


RE: Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By Jalek on 11/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Fact Check on Aisle 2, Please.
By tjr508 on 11/23/09, Rating: 0
not that strange
By buzznut on 11/20/2009 4:36:13 PM , Rating: 4
Many journalists and scientists are aware of tricks to use to skew data to their benefit. For instance when setting up graphs, they can choose intervals that show what looks like significant changes occurring but may not be significant at all. Global warming data is particularly suited to this type of manipulation.

This is more than skewed data though. People need to remember that global warming is a multi-billion dollar industry, and that means greedy people with few scruples will do just about anything to get paid.




RE: not that strange
By ed2 on 11/20/2009 5:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, nothing "stunning" here
In 70s it was global cooling , now it's warming.
Profitable scam.


RE: not that strange
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:43:34 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
For instance when setting up graphs, they can choose intervals that show what looks like significant changes occurring but may not be significant at all.

Which is why peer review is such an important aspect of the scientific community, because peer review tends to weed out anomalous tactics like that.

There's also a reason the AGW-pushers have tried like crazy to avoid a transparent peer review process, and have put forth massive loads of effort to keep skeptics from reviewing their information.


RE: not that strange
By jimbojimbo on 11/23/2009 10:28:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, if they told everyone the world is fine do you think they'd get future funding? Tell everyone that people are killing the planet and they need further research and of course their funding will go up. It's all about money.


Global BS
By btc909 on 11/20/2009 7:06:41 PM , Rating: 5
Global Warming is a money grab. A new industry created to jobs, legislation, rules, fines, penalties, control over land, you name it. I’m for reducing pollution but not by using scare tactics & lies.

“If we don’t do something the planet will be dead in 10 years.” Hummm 10 year later Al Gore it looks like that planet is still here. More BS please. Al Gore will make BILLIONS related to Global BS.

Keep moving forward towards removing pollution; get rid of the United States fear of Nuclear Energy.

I realize big jumps in technology aren’t as profitable compared to slowing bringing a new or newer technology to market. This would be the majority of the US Automakers way of doing business for the last 50 years, oh well. Now you have these Global Nutbags spewing lies about what is going to happen if something isn’t done to save the planet.




Now I'm confused...
By borismkv on 11/20/2009 10:56:29 PM , Rating: 3
When did Mick stop being a GW fanboi?




RE: Now I'm confused...
By kyleb2112 on 11/25/2009 4:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm still waiting for the huge mea culpa on that one.
But that would require something like honesty.


Its Less than Fraud, but more than the truth
By AzureX120 on 11/21/2009 9:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
This article isn't exactly portraying the whole of the story. In fact many of the quotes pulled out of this article more then a bit out of context... or at least not explained very well. There are several excellent discussion on this outside of dailytech http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=14519...

Also an interesting return
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009...

But while the arguments of outright fraud are unjustified, It can be clearly assumed that CRU does not handle itself in the traditional scientific forum, its not necessarily because they analyze the data. Thats called data analysis, it happens in every electronic device and in every bit of information about general trends and numbers. I'm guessing the signal to noise ratio of THE ENTIRE PLANET, is kind of bad enough to turn the climate research into more of an imprecise science. But rather then through out accusations of fraud, we should recall that much of this controversy (with respect to the CRU) is due to there lack of transparency and refusal to work with the scientific community in general. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-...

Besides anywhere that much of the data is subject to interpretation, the conclusions can be more easily dramatized. 76% of statistics are lies, and when more money is involved, that number increases exponentially. (cough cough pharmco)

Also, there is significant speculation that the information was altered before its release. Unfortunately we have no means of countering this.

While this release may or may not condemn the CRU, It's probably not as bad as it seems out of context. Ex: a data trick doesn't necessarily mean a hoax, and accounting for other data in a trend does not necessarily imply that you are covering up data. But whether or not the released communications are true or not, CRU definitely operated on too much of a closed door policy.

BTW if you bothered to download the emails, read 0880476729.txt




By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:51:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There are several excellent discussion on this outside of dailytech http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=14519...

And they go on to describe McKittrick's refutation of Mann's tree ring analysis, and suggest not only that McKittrick's work has been accepted (it hasn't), but also that the two were working together (they weren't; Mann spent years trying to prevent McKittrick from accessing the data).

So your defense against this allegation of data falsification is to say that's it's Okay because there's already been plenty of data falsification? No dice.


Al Gore
By ice456789 on 11/22/2009 8:29:25 AM , Rating: 5
Right now Al Gore is wishing he had never invented the internet.




Cancel climate conference
By tallredeye on 11/21/2009 4:58:57 AM , Rating: 4
They should now just cancel the Copenhagen Climate Conference to save taxpayer money. We are in massive debt already.




Misunderstood and mis-reported
By LongTimePCUser on 11/23/2009 10:46:36 AM , Rating: 1
The language used ’statistical “trick”’ is used differently by scientists than it is in common usage. ’statistical “trick”’ in this context can be a synonym for “technique to correct the accuracy of the data”.

The fact that some scientists state that others are idiots is just something that goes with the territory and the culture. Some scientists do think that other people, including scientists, are idiots. If you are shocked that some scientists accuse others of being "idiots" then you should be surprized that NBA basketball players engage in trash talk.




RE: Misunderstood and mis-reported
By SPOOFE on 11/23/2009 8:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
Your post doesn't hold water in a world where this release of data has been preceded by numerous findings of cooked numbers or deliberately falsified info. Do a recent Google search for "Yamal tree rings".


experts?
By brundall on 11/20/2009 7:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The University of East Anglia described the center, writing, "Widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change."


East Anglia rocks - I lived there as a kid (Norwich). They also have many experts in turnip growing and combine harvesting if anyones interested?




you're welcome
By glennforum on 11/20/2009 7:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
Jason you're welcome for heads up on this story...




Yep, UN, tax us all!
By Nfarce on 11/21/2009 1:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
Amazing. Now exactly who are the idiot "deniers" again?

"Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,6...

Uhm, yeah. Let's tax the hell out of the successful (nations or otherwise) and use the mindless "OMG GLOBAL WARMING!!!" mandate for UN pacification without representation.




the question..
By Silver2k7 on 11/21/2009 12:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
who is gaining most from this falsification of data ?
is someone making money from because of this ?




What needs to be done.
By mikefarinha on 11/22/2009 11:06:21 AM , Rating: 2
What I think needs to be done is these 'scientists' need to be publicly chastised and loose their job. This will send a message to anyone fudging data that the same could happen to them.




Another bankers scam
By stilltrying on 11/22/2009 1:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
AGW is another bankers scam to sell and trade carbon credits and add another derivative in the market. It is also another means for the bankers to consolidate their power over the entire world.

If the cap and trade were to go into effect their would be a huge market for scam trading the same that we are facing today. Leave it to the greediest people on earth to think of an insurmountable number of ways to send all but themselves into serfdom.




well well well......
By spepper on 11/22/2009 8:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
....it appears they have been "making it all up" after all-- that's what we've been trying to tell the young'un's, especially those who have been indoctrinated (brainwashed?) at the lovely government schools, which follow the propaganda of the federal government from which they get funding, but only if they "tow the line"-- but we must stay vigilant, because there's still an entrenchment of ALGORIANS from the planet HOTAIR, all throughout the Congress, EPA, White House, and not to forget, the academic world-- for the singular purpose of achieving global oligarchy through the hoax of artificial global warming!




By omgwtf8888 on 11/23/2009 11:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
If this is true, the people on Wallstreet have some competition for criminal act of the decade. These jackasses and their falsifying of data serve to undo all the legitamacy of the scientific method and its teachings. What's next did Darwin slant his studies to confirm evolution. Maybe, the universe does revolve around the earth. And, what the hell maybe the earth is flat and "there be dragons". These ass-clowns have put a very big chink into science's credibility. Heck, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend chewing %$#*&#% gum.... At least I know they are just trying to sell me something...

And as for religion, think about this.... Only one religion can be right... All the others are most likely going to Hell, Jahannam, Avici,Tartarus, realm of the devourer, whatever. What if the right one requires that you had participated in the carving and moving of a Moai on easter island?

Maybe global warming is occuring because of the large increase in lying ass scientists going to hell and heating the place up...




Climate Change Denial
By mwnl on 11/26/2009 11:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
Climate change denial is total manipulative b.s. in the same category as other popular conspiracy theories.

There is plenty of plenty of carbon fueled manipulative propaganda machinery at work with too easy a pool of people waiting to be sold a bill of goods and this site is part of it.

See Wiki:
Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. [1] The subject may use:

* simple denial - deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
* minimisation - admit the fact but deny its seriousness, or
* projection - to assume that other people around you are feeling the same, or to accuse someone of doing what you are to feel better about your own situation so that you can help them out of it, helping you out of it.responsibility




Dismissed
By mich0311 on 11/28/2009 11:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
Mainstream media is dismissing these emails and the alleged misconduct as out of context, the summary on Cnn even calling them proof the scientists were thorough.

Seems like there is a spotlight window and it is closing.

Btw, i've never heard of "tricks" used in research before this.

But seriously, keep arguing about faith and science and don't pay attention to reality.




By phxfreddy on 11/20/2009 5:51:27 PM , Rating: 1
a healthy aptitude for mathematics and logic combined with that of knowledge of human nature gave up the game DECADES ago on global warming.

Its good to see you guys are finally catching up!




Email isn't data
By slash196 on 11/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Email isn't data
By kattanna on 11/20/2009 4:23:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Let us know when there's a problem with a peer-reviewed article in a journal. There's total transparency there


if that was only true. maybe you should read this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scan...

or feel free to google yamal tree ring

the fact that a paper was peer reviewed without having to give up the data for others to review is a shame.


RE: Email isn't data
By Keeir on 11/20/2009 4:44:45 PM , Rating: 5
For those that don't read the full paper, the best quote is this...

"
The Royal Society's motto from the enlightenment era is Nullius in verba. "On nobody's authority" or colloquially, "take nobody's word for it". In 2007, the Society's then president suggested this be changed to "respect the facts".
"

Just as Monothestic religion moved from being an upstart "freedom" movement to a device to control people, it appears science is headed the same way. Instead of empowering people to live better lives, Science is being used to control and decieve people.


RE: Email isn't data
By William Gaatjes on 11/20/2009 6:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just as Monothestic religion moved from being an upstart "freedom" movement to a device to control people, it appears science is headed the same way. Instead of empowering people to live better lives, Science is being used to control and decieve people.


I would rate you up to +6 if i could.
At least a post cannot be erased just rated down.

You just described humanity's biggest flaw.


RE: Email isn't data
By menace on 11/20/2009 5:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Holy schnikies

And another pillar comes crashing down

So much for the "hockey stick". Global warming really is a "Mann-made" phenomenon.

When was this reported on CNN? I missed the news.


RE: Email isn't data
By phxfreddy on 11/20/2009 5:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Its man bear pig....man bear pig !!!

Run away!

Woot man bear pig just dissappeared in a puff of schmoke!


RE: Email isn't data
By xxsk8er101xx on 11/21/2009 1:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
lol nice


RE: Email isn't data
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/20/2009 4:26:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Let us know when there's a problem with a peer-reviewed article in a journal. There's total transparency there.


I can only hope you're being sarcastic. According to these emails, the researchers engaged in a witch-hunt to remove climate skeptics from peer-review boards. So the papers published were reviewed by biased parties.

Also, the emails clearly state that the center was modifying data fallaciously in its studies with the intent to deceive. Given the complexities of such work, it would unsurprising if such deception passed right by the review board. The peer-review system is not as air-tight as one might think.


RE: Email isn't data
By phattyboombatty on 11/20/2009 4:58:03 PM , Rating: 5
There's almost no way to catch falsified data in the peer-review process. That process mostly checks the process used for gathering the data and the analysis of that data as well as the soundness of the conclusions that are reached. The whole process assumes that the person submitting the paper was honest.


RE: Email isn't data
By MozeeToby on 11/20/2009 5:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, detecting falsified data is possible using statistical analysys (look up Benford's Law for an example). It should be possible to determing if the data is the correct amount of random (sounds stupid but that's what it boils down to), real data is random only to a point but truly made up data is moreso.

I wonder if this has ever been done on the raw climate data? Oh wait, what's that you say? They won't release the raw data for some arcane and not thoroughly communicated reason? And how is this peer reviewed again?


RE: Email isn't data
By xxsk8er101xx on 11/21/2009 1:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
You can easily falsify your method of collecting data and then falsify the data. This then makes the data look legit. This of course is unethical and will get anyone kicked out of whatever country or state they live in.

But when you're handed billions of dollars in tax free grants to prove global warming I would bet anyone would do it.


RE: Email isn't data
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:46:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There's almost no way to catch falsified data in the peer-review process.

And yet recent reviews of one significant study found... falsified data, in the form of cherry-picked tree ring samples.


RE: Email isn't data
By karielash on 11/21/2009 8:58:17 AM , Rating: 3

According to a bunch of emails tat were 'Stolen' by 'Hackers'' who almost certainly would not have manipulated them to support their political beliefs because obviously they are fine upstanding citizens.

Several days ago some of the most virulent Neo-Republican members of this board were screaming (literally) for a certain British hacker to be extradited to face the wrath of the USA because hacking was such a crime.... funny how the only cries now about are about how great this information is, no doubt though if this turns out to be American hackers Mick and his fellow Neo-Republicans will be screaming for the culprits to be sent to the UK for their 70 year sentences...


RE: Email isn't data
By VultureTX on 11/21/2009 11:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
So did you support the NYT publishing the Pentagon Papers?

That British hacker was messing with military (non essential but military ) systems, and diverted resources during a war.

These hackers like the ones who hacked the Co$ or even hacked David Irving were exposing the truth (ie presenting facts to the public to judge) and their actions were not seen by IT security as a "terrorist event". The fact that you can't see a difference means you need to publish all your private data so that you won't have to worry again on the subject K ;)


RE: Email isn't data
By Jalek on 11/21/2009 12:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
The kid caught for the Scientology attack's doing federal prison time. He was apparently one of many (hence DDOS) but he got caught, and has to pay them to upgrade their security systems.

This was an attack on a public institution. Perhaps England's not as rabid as America in prosecution, but in America, this would result in high profile arrests and another courtroom circus.

The law, after all, is another entertainment venue in the US, not something to be taken seriously. Those in Congress certainly don't, it's just a cash cow for them.


RE: Email isn't data
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to a bunch of emails tat were 'Stolen' by 'Hackers'' who almost certainly would not have manipulated them to support their political beliefs because obviously they are fine upstanding citizens.

Irrelevent. They've been confirmed as genuine by Phil Jones, the man who wrote or received many of those E-mails. I think he would know better than you.


RE: Email isn't data
By karielash on 11/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Email isn't data
By SPOOFE on 11/22/2009 7:23:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Very relevant considering they only published the excerpts that would look most damning.

You assume; another interpretation is that there are so many damning excerpts that they're the rule and not the exception. But most amazingly, you don't seem to realize that all one needs is ONE damning piece of evidence indicating scientific misconduct or falsification of data to justify questioning the whole damn thing.

Science is the practice of finding internal consistency; if you have a single inconsistency - and there's far more than a single inconsistency in the Pro-AGW agenda - then your science is either flawed or incomplete. Either way, any reasonable person would heavily suspect the assertions of these people.


RE: Email isn't data
By glennforum on 11/20/2009 7:53:24 PM , Rating: 3
Must be nice to walk around as a drone or an OBot...

The emails tell a lot of things but two that will interest you if you still have any independent thought left...

1) In the emails they specifically state they have manipulated, frabricated and hid data to get the results that they wanted.
2) They also said the peer reviews were staged, stacked with compatible ideologues and they deliberately staged it so scientists that would challenge wouldn't be allowed in.

Additionally their "rulesoftheroad.pdf" shows their high level overview on how to pull the deception off on the general public.

Why don't you take a minute and realize something...just because you happen to like this agenda so you have jumped in with both feet to continue to support it, etc...what happens when people that will take the same tactics and pursue an agenda that you don't like?

Tyranny goes both ways...truth is all that is required to expose the frauds.

Why do you think they have to tack on bills, pork, etc...and pass them in the middle of the night?

We are at a cross-road here in the USA and people have to make a choice...we have very dark days ahead of us.


RE: Email isn't data
By karielash on 11/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Email isn't data
By Jalek on 11/21/2009 12:30:21 PM , Rating: 5
Attack the messenger much?
Still backing the nuclear winter story too? That was taught in schools, Carl Sagan made films explaining the mechanism and how it worked.. and it was all based on faulty assumptions and junk science.

Of course at that time, we were all on the verge of being swept up by global cooling into the coming ice age.

I just think this entire thing needs to be able to stand up to standard scientific scrutiny, not have any questions raised only met with ranting and diversion as it has for the last decade.


RE: Email isn't data
By karielash on 11/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Email isn't data
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 4:57:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You have information stolen for political gain Published for political gain

Falsified for political gain.
Hidden for political gain.
Exaggerated for political gain.

I recall a Bible verse about motes and beams; or you can go with the modern interpretation about pots and kettles.

quote:
No certainty that the information was not modified to enhance a political position.

FUD. Phil Jones confirmed; they are genuine. Please explain why you would know better than the guy that wrote a lot of those E-mails.


RE: Email isn't data
By karielash on 11/21/09, Rating: -1
RE: Email isn't data
By SPOOFE on 11/21/2009 10:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
What context are they missing? You speak so authoritatively, surely you must have some proof for this assertion of yours.


RE: Email isn't data
By karielash on 11/22/2009 9:27:40 AM , Rating: 1
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=14519...

Here you go. a slightly different perspective on the events.


RE: Email isn't data
By SPOOFE on 11/22/2009 7:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
A distorted perspective. I responded to this above; one of the first things they mention is McKittrick finding flaws in Mann's paper.

Mann's paper is one used as the basis for the IPCC report; his paper has been refuted by Mann, yet has not been accepted. Nor did Mann work with McKittrick; he spent years trying to prevent McKittrick from getting the data.

So now, that link does NOT refute or provide another perspective; it is blatant dishonesty and misrepresentation. That should be another major red flag to any reasonable person.


RE: Email isn't data
By SPOOFE on 11/22/2009 7:31:25 PM , Rating: 2
Oops; I meant to observe that Mann's paper has been refuted by McKittrick.


RE: Email isn't data
By karielash on 11/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Email isn't data
By SPOOFE on 11/23/2009 4:56:25 PM , Rating: 1
You don't even know who McKittrick or Mann are, do you?


RE: Email isn't data
By karielash on 11/24/2009 5:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
Sure do.
Maybe you should look up Ethics, I assume you know what they are don't you?


Jesus never existed
By Nowitzki25 on 11/22/09, Rating: -1
"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