| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud? |
| Yes |
|
43% |
[ 19 ] |
| No |
|
56% |
[ 25 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 44 |
|
| Author |
Message |
kevstar31
Guru
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 449
Location: Ohio
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 9:56 pm Post subject: Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud? |
 |
|
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/
| Quote: | | Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt’s Up With That): |
_________________
while(true) std::cout << "Jesus I trust in you." << std::endl;
My Political Compass
Last edited by kevstar31 on Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is 
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gasp! Scientists (the gods of non theists) would never lie for political and economic reasons! They are more than mere people! And the United Nations, that paradigm of ethics would never perpetuate the lie!
Wake up and smell the coffee you gullible people. As I've been telling you for years: There is no man made global warming. No, no, I'm sorry, not global warming. I forgot we don't call it that anymore. Let me rephrase. There is no man made climate change.
So just laugh, and blame it all on big oil and George Bush. Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.
It's no longer getting warmer. The models have been wrong every time. We've got to come up with an excuse.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh yes, let's hack thousands of mails and then cherry-pick "evidence" to "damn" our opponents... 
Here's Climate Progress's take on it.
And RealClimate's answer.
Most notably,
[quote=RealClimate]More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.[/quote]
Unlike what we know from the denialist side...
| Quote: | | Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking. |
Scientists behaving like scientists! Gasp! Shock!
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big dave
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2009
Posts: 0
Location: in your base, killin all your doodz
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
the point is that when some scientist posts some article in a journal expecting peer review, he better be ready for criticism. too many people equate "published" with "being correct." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| big dave wrote: |
the point is that when some scientist posts some article in a journal expecting peer review, he better be ready for criticism. too many people equate "published" with "being correct." |
Well, these are private mails... Not peer-reviewed journal papers.
Nobody's saying anything against peer review here, are they?
EDIT: And in any case, they're responding to the criticism quite well. Something I don't really see from the denialist side. Repeating your arguments in a louder tone or in tabloid press is not answering problems. Ignoring evidence or cherry-picking results is not scientific criticism or skepticism, either.
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1139
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shash wrote: | Well, these are private mails... Not peer-reviewed journal papers.
Nobody's saying anything against peer review here, are they? |
Well, there is that one email that says:
| Quote: | | The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! |
Vanishing papers doesn't sound very scientific. Neither does:
| Quote: | Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
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. |
Manipulating data to "hide the decline?" Doesn't sound good to me.
_________________
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | Well, there is that one email that says:
| Quote: | | The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! |
Vanishing papers doesn't sound very scientific. |
No, it doesn't sound good. On the other hand, there should be some standards in what papers are referenced. There is no way to tell from the email if the papers are being kept out of the IPCC report (not vanished) because they are lousy, or because they say controversial things.
| Quote: | Neither does:
| Quote: | Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
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. |
Manipulating data to "hide the decline?" Doesn't sound good to me. |
The RealClimate link given above responds to this one:
| Quote: | | No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1139
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
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.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
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.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……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….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !” |
_________________
I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | 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. |
See above...
[qupte]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.[/quote]
I believe this refers to one aberrant dataset, which didn't show warming while the others did. They weren't able to correlate that dataset, so they decided not to use it.
| Quote: | Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. |
I'll have to find this one...
| Quote: | Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted. |
No more than anything any normal human being would feel during a very contentious and hard-fought battle. You call this "evidence" of anything?
| Quote: | Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……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…. |
Again, I'd like to see some more context - what were they trying to do?
| Quote: | And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?” |
Discussing the fact that the journal itself seems to be biased. Nothing I find alarming in that.
| Quote: | | “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !” |
Normal practice in the scientific community.
Really, there's nothing "alarming" in this. If it's a nail in any coffin, it's in the coffin of denialism.
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
A comment at ClimateProgress:
| Quote: | | The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it’s all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they’ve ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory. |
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Voltago
Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 2482
Location: Hinter den Materiequellen
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In other news, scientists confirm that when you're confronted with a problem, shutting your eyes, plugging your fingers in your ears and going LALALALA in a very loud voice makes that problem go away. Just in case it doesn't work, flinging mud against people that tell you things you don't want to hear usually does the trick. And failing that, just claim that some kind of global conspiracy exists that dreamed up the problem in the first place, and you're home and dry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Voltago wrote: | | In other news, scientists confirm that when you're confronted with a problem, shutting your eyes, plugging your fingers in your ears and going LALALALA in a very loud voice makes that problem go away. Just in case it doesn't work, flinging mud against people that tell you things you don't want to hear usually does the trick. And failing that, just claim that some kind of global conspiracy exists that dreamed up the problem in the first place, and you're home and dry. |
What you describe is exactly what the man made global warming proponents have been doing for years.
Thank you.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| old school wrote: | | There is no man made climate change. |
Just because climate change is not an irrefutable fact does not automatically make it fiction.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
genstorm
Veteran
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 1957
Location: Austria
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah sure, it's all a big scientists' plot. Get a life...
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: | | old school wrote: | | There is no man made climate change. |
Just because climate change is not an irrefutable fact does not automatically make it fiction. |
I don't know if we are understanding one another. I have never argued that it was not getting warmer, just the cause and effects.
Taking away the little CO2 humans contribute, the rising levels in the atmosphere are the effect, not cause, of recent warming trends. The Russians proved this from deep ice cores in Antarctica.
For the majority of time of the "Modern Earth," the temperature and CO2 levels have been higher than the current levels. And life flourished as never before. The plants dug it as well as the animals that ate the plants. The oceans teamed with life. One could say that the times we are living in are the aberration.
Now this does not mean we as a species just fling crap all over the place. The less overall impact we have the better.
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| old school wrote: | | sts wrote: | | old school wrote: | | There is no man made climate change. |
Just because climate change is not an irrefutable fact does not automatically make it fiction. |
I don't know if we are understanding one another. I have never argued that it was not getting warmer, just the cause and effects. |
I'm saying we don't know how much human activity affects global climate. You're dismissal of man-made climate change is just as wrong as their little adventure in confirmation bias.
I agree with you on the pollution part, though. Al Gore really f'd up by framing the whole conversation around Global Warming and this "the sky is falling" scenario instead of the more believable and more sensible "we are slowly poisoning ourselves and our environment with pollution" argument. We would probably have also wasted less time and money on "global cooling" engineering solutions that address only temperature change and not pollution.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shash
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 220
Location: India
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: | | old school wrote: | | sts wrote: | | old school wrote: | | There is no man made climate change. |
Just because climate change is not an irrefutable fact does not automatically make it fiction. |
I don't know if we are understanding one another. I have never argued that it was not getting warmer, just the cause and effects. |
I'm saying we don't know how much human activity affects global climate. You're dismissal of man-made climate change is just as wrong as their little adventure in confirmation bias.
I agree with you on the pollution part, though. Al Gore really f'd up by framing the whole conversation around Global Warming and this "the sky is falling" scenario instead of the more believable and more sensible "we are slowly poisoning ourselves and our environment with pollution" argument. We would probably have also wasted less time and money on "global cooling" engineering solutions that address only temperature change and not pollution. |
You mean like geoengineering "solutions"? CCS is viable, and a good option, but seriously, increasing the earth's albedo by pumping more SO2 into the air? That's retarded beyond belief! I'd rather drown than get my skin burned of by acid rain...
_________________
The only difference between martyrdom and suicide is press coverage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming?
Hmmmm, I wonder if they do that about other things *coughevolution* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming? |
Because it would inconvenience them.
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 654
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming? |
You might want to look up the meaning of "Scientifically". Please, for example, explain the growth of the polar ice caps and the cooling we've had since 1998 and make that fit into the "warming" concept. If that can be done, then please explain how all of this is caused by humans and can be fixed by humans. I'd love to see how the human race will stop all volcanic eruptions and plant decay (CO2 levels that make a fleet of SUVs seem like windmills).
_________________
| ichbinsisyphos wrote: | | You know, personally I've never been the greatest fan of Negroes |
The Philosophy of Liberty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming? |
To generalize, we Americans have a proud history of questioning authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1096
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Growth of the Polar ice caps?.. According to NASAs own data, the ice caps have shrunk significantly over the last 20 years. There's a full 20% missing from the median ice coverage.
Global warming scepticism; if you can't disprove your irrational beliefs, make shit up, or blame Obama.
_________________
| drizek wrote: | | Here in America, we are like a bunch of shit-slinging monkeys. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | why is it that it's only americans who argue against scientifically proven global warming?
Hmmmm, I wonder if they do that about other things *coughevolution* |
You need to change newspapers. 
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
