Climategate

[twotoner]

This could get interesting:

http://www.dailytech.com/Climategate...ticle16889.htm

From the article:
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.

Here's one example:
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.

[Rathji]

So if the climate researchers can falsify data to make their position look better, who says the 'hackers' didn't falsify/alter this email to strengthen theirs?

That said, I often think that even though the scientific process and peer review should eventually produce the most correct understanding we can garner at any specific time, they are just as likely to be effected by the all mighty dollar and personal motives as the rest of society.

[ernie]

Not saying this is true or anything but as a research chemist you see this type of thing all the time. Well not outright falsifying of data but only paying attention to data that proves your viewpoint. The most difficult thing to do as a scientist is keep that open mind...especially at the later stages of a project.

[puckhog]

I'm not saying this confirms the authenticity of the files, but this article from RealClimate certainly does not deny it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by twotoner

Here's one example:
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.

Example of what?

No one knows what the context of the messages are. At a glance to me that looks like someone discussing playing around with different variables in a model and the results generated whilst referencing a colleague's nature paper.

Trick doesn't neccesarily imply deception just a way of doing things.

And once published it's accepted good practice to share the model and data set for review should it be requested.

Not saying there is not any wrong-doing just that people play about with and manipulate models all the time. The key thing is transparency re. the model itself and the data entered into the model.

As you say it will be interesting to hear the accusations and defences of the authors.

And off topic a bit for an internet law question. If I download the e-mails is it considered an unlawful act? Like knowingly receiving stolen goods?

And UEA has confirmed the hacking incident.

[photon]

Originally Posted by puckhog

I'm not saying this confirms the authenticity of the files, but this article from RealClimate certainly does not deny it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

From that link:

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.

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.

[Thor]

Where the hell is Tower and why didn't he post this??

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Thor

Where the hell is Tower and why didn't he post this??

He was banned a while back.

[twotoner]

I'm not saying its real or fake. I frankly don't know. Just think it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by twotoner

I'm not saying its real or fake. I frankly don't know. Just think it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I remember a segment last week when Jon Stewart was showing a bunch of clips of Glen Beck saying stuff like:

"I have no idea if this is true or not, but I thought I would bring it up because it's interesting"
or
"Right now this is all conjecture, but I thought it was interesting".

Like, "I heard someone say that twotoner likes to dress in women's underwear. At present, there is no proof, I have no idea if it is true or not, but I find it interesting."

The point was how disingenuous it is to say "Oh, I just brought this up because I find it interesting" when the real motivation is that you want to inject doubt without hard solid fact to inject doubt.

It's the same language I got in that letter in my mailbox about the H1N1 vaccine. Most everything was a question. "Is it really safe? Have they really tested it enough? Do you want to risk your children's health?" The rest was "isn't it interesting" such as "It is interesting that Health Canada let this vaccine through so fast."

If you are going to post something incendiary at least have the "Stephen Colbert's Balls" to back it up and not hide behind "I just thought this was interesting".

-=-=-=-=-=-

I REALLY have a hard time believing that those with a vested interest in proving global warming have more money to bribe scientists than those with a vested interest in disproving global warming. It took a very long time for science to prove tobacco was harmful because those with a vested interest in proving that it was harmful had less money than those with a vested interest in disproving that it was harmful.

[GreenLantern]

Originally Posted by ernie

Not saying this is true or anything but as a research chemist you see this type of thing all the time. Well not outright falsifying of data but only paying attention to data that proves your viewpoint. The most difficult thing to do as a scientist is keep that open mind...especially at the later stages of a project.

Yes.. when you read a scientific paper you also have to think about what didn't make the cut.

[GreenLantern]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

....

Do you watch South Park? If not you should go watch Season 13 Episode 13. They beak Glen Beck really good.

[Calgaryborn]

Powerline has had two interesting articles on this subject yesterday and today. http://www.powerlineblog.com/

They conclude that these scientists have been caught up in the politics of global warming. This has caused them to cover up conflicting findings and cherry pick. Very human of them and no one should be surprised. They do seem to still believe their cause is right and urgent so this isn't just a case of them protecting their cash cow.

More concerning is the accepted research based on tree ring data. In this case the scientist allegedly cherry picked his data. But of greater concern is that the global warming community relies on such data at all. It sounds like they use it in a lot of their studies. The problem is that heat units play only a small role in the growth of a tree in the wild. No one could use tree rings to determine temperature outside of a controlled environment where all other factors could be monitored.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

Do you watch South Park? If not you should go watch Season 13 Episode 13. They beak Glen Beck really good.

HAHAHAHA,

I had no idea what that episode was about, I was actually going to ask a friend or post here because usually I get all the references.

Then I read this sentence

Like, "I heard someone say that twotoner likes to dress in women's underwear. At present, there is no proof, I have no idea if it is true or not, but I find it interesting."

And was answered. I was wondering in the Plain/Beck thread who was this Glen Beck character

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by photon

From that link:

Yes, but I only posted it to show that they are not denying that the emails are real and from the sources that they are purported to be from. Also, although RealClimate claims to be neutral, this quote from one of the leaked emails suggests otherwise:

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful.Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

If the emails are all legitimate, the above quote would indicate that RealClimate is not really neutral at all. If that is the case, it would make sense for them deny that these files do anything to refute the anthropogenic global warming theory.

[TheU]

climate change is bogus. the earths average temp hasn't gone up in 10 years, and were about to go into a global cooling period. its just sad the average person doesn't take the time to look up actual data and look at it. go ahead, google it, go thru it, oh, better yet... just listen to al gore.. a politician.. show you sad video of polar bears frantically swimming. lemmings.

[flip]

Originally Posted by TheU

climate change is bogus. the earths average temp hasn't gone up in 10 years, and were about to go into a global cooling period. its just sad the average person doesn't take the time to look up actual data and look at it. go ahead, google it, go thru it, oh, better yet... just listen to al gore.. a politician.. show you sad video of polar bears frantically swimming. lemmings.

So I guess all that ice melting in the arctic is bogus too? With the current data available the NW passage will likely be open in the next 10-15 years.

[TheU]

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

The hockey stick graph exposed. This is where the lies began. Global "warming" (now climate change, because the earths average temp hasn't gone up in 10 years) is a multi billion dollar scam. It will be protected and propogated by liars to make money as long as they can.

So I guess all that ice melting in the arctic is bogus too? With the current data available the NW passage will likely be open in the next 10-15 years.

Yeah, it's called a cycle. The Earth has been far far hotter than it is now in the past, and amazingly the arctic recoved it's ice and polar bears survived, as they will this time.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by TheU

lemmings.

And there folks is how we debate on CP. If someone does believe that there is global warming, we call them names. QED.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And there folks is how we debate on CP. If someone does believe that there is global warming, we call them names. QED.

And there folks is what a liberal does when confronted with uncomfortable facts: He/she makes themselves out to be a victim.