Emails Expose Global Warming Scam

[mrplunkey]

Why aren't we hearing more about this? Supposed scientists are blatantly caught faking and manipulating data, yet people aren't screaming.

Samoth? WTF? Represent!

Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate' - FOXNews.com

 

[PICK3]

Arctic sea ice conditions are even worse than feared after a survey found that ice detected as older and thicker by satellites is actually thin and fragile, a prominent Canadian researcher reported Friday.

Much less ice for polar bears, expert says - Climate Change- msnbc.com

 

[mrplunkey]

Arctic sea ice conditions are even worse than feared after a survey found that ice detected as older and thicker by satellites is actually thin and fragile, a prominent Canadian researcher reported Friday.

Much less ice for polar bears, expert says - Climate Change- msnbc.com

... and yet polar bears are doing just great.

Polar Bear Testimony Suppressed Due to 'Inconvenient' Truths | NewsBusters.org

That's another scam they pulled-off (I'm assuming that's the point of your post).

 

[EnderJE]

If I recall the actually page from WikiLeaks, it talked about the peer review of the opinions of global warming and didn't sensationalize it like Fox does. In the end, it depends on what you believe.

Personally, I think that the climate is impacted by man's actions. Or are you telling me that pumping the CO2 into the air is good for the environment? I don't see that as a logical conclusion because I can run a small microcosm experiment and produce a similar result.

That said, the key question is what do we do now? Fortunately, life is very cheap and that's a good thing. It might be worthwhile to make some small improvements and have yearly targets year over year to improve ourselves. Those who would be more impacted would / should do more or suffer in the process and act as an example.

 

[mrplunkey]

If I recall the actually page from WikiLeaks, it talked about the peer review of the opinions of global warming and didn't sensationalize it like Fox does. In the end, it depends on what you believe.

Personally, I think that the climate is impacted by man's actions. Or are you telling me that pumping the CO2 into the air is good for the environment? I don't see that as a logical conclusion because I can run a small microcosm experiment and produce a similar result.

That said, the key question is what do we do now? Fortunately, life is very cheap and that's a good thing. It might be worthwhile to make some small improvements and have yearly targets year over year to improve ourselves. Those who would be more impacted would / should do more or suffer in the process and act as an example.

We probably do have some impact, but it's also obvious that we can't quantify it nor can we prove the system doesn't correct itself. My problem is that today's climate change hacks are pushing a political agenda -- not a scientific one.

Here's a great example. Let's say that cap and trade works (which it won't). Let's say it works perfectly with zero unintended consequences here at home. So we drop from 6.6B barrels of oil per year to 5.6B barrels -- where do those barrels go? Well they go to China and India of course, where they'll be burned anywhere from 10x to 100x less cleanly. So before, our 6.6B barrels produced "Y" pollution. Now, those barrels can product (5.6/6.6)*Y + (1.0/6.6)*Y*100 pollution. I'm pretty sure that's a bigger number and the best part is, the better cap and trade works, the more pollution we'd actually make.

So to all the climate change fanatics out there who want to make multi-trillion dollar changes to our economy, I have one simple question: What's your end game?

 

[Dial_tone]

I'm just unconvinced there is a computer powerful enough AND a human designed software simulation that accurately predicts anything 20-50 years from now.

 

[EnderJE]

We probably do have some impact, but it's also obvious that we can't quantify it nor can we prove the system doesn't correct itself. My problem is that today's climate change hacks are pushing a political agenda -- not a scientific one.

Here's a great example. Let's say that cap and trade works (which it won't). Let's say it works perfectly with zero unintended consequences here at home. So we drop from 6.6B barrels of oil per year to 5.6B barrels -- where do those barrels go? Well they go to China and India of course, where they'll be burned anywhere from 10x to 100x less cleanly. So before, our 6.6B barrels produced "Y" pollution. Now, those barrels can product (5.6/6.6)*Y + (1.0/6.6)*Y*100 pollution. I'm pretty sure that's a bigger number and the best part is, the better cap and trade works, the more pollution we'd actually make.

So to all the climate change fanatics out there who want to make multi-trillion dollar changes to our economy, I have one simple question: What's your end game?

Yeah, that is a problem (ie the political agenda and not the scientific one). The solution has to work for everyone. Simply pushing the problem over seas (like in your example) doesn't solve the actual problem.

 

[EnderJE]

I'm just unconvinced there is a computer powerful enough AND a human designed software simulation that accurately predicts anything 20-50 years from now.

Science is not your thing, eh?

 

[bakemeacookie]

Think about it. If they said GW was a scam - their funding and donations would go bye-bye. Where they gonna get their comfyu $90k per year jobs doing dick?

c

 

[Dial_tone]

Science is not your thing, eh?

A golf analogy

If you're putting from 6 feet away (predicting temperature next week) most of your misses will be pretty close to the pin. If you're driving from 250 yards away (predicting temperatures 30 years away) some will be close and some will be way the f**k off. The farther out you go the bigger your misses are going to be. You hit (run the simulation) a couple hundred drives and come up with an average placement (temp prediction). What if one of your variables is wrong and the pin is actually 30 yards away from where you aimed? Heck, what if you're biased and input a certain variable because you know what outcome you want.

If these clowns can predict general temps 30 years from now then they ought to be able to tell me EXACTLY what the tempeature will be and what time it will start raining next Tuesday in Kalamazoo, MI.

 

[mrplunkey]

A golf analogy

If you're putting from 6 feet away (predicting temperature next week) most of your misses will be pretty close to the pin. If you're driving from 250 yards away (predicting temperatures 30 years away) some will be close and some will be way the f**k off. The farther out you go the bigger your misses are going to be. You hit (run the simulation) a couple hundred drives and come up with an average placement (temp prediction). What if one of your variables is wrong and the pin is actually 30 yards away from where you aimed? Heck, what if you're biased and input a certain variable because you know what outcome you want.

If these clowns can predict general temps 30 years from now then they ought to be able to tell me EXACTLY what the tempeature will be and what time it will start raining next Tuesday in Kalamazoo, MI.

Very good analogy.

They've come-up with an average ball placement and now they're telling me that unless I buy their $18,500 driver, I'll never be any sort of golfer. I'm not ready to rush over to Golf-R-Us quite yet.

 

[mrplunkey]

Yeah, that is a problem (ie the political agenda and not the scientific one). The solution has to work for everyone. Simply pushing the problem over seas (like in your example) doesn't solve the actual problem.

Here's a really simple solution: Don't hamstring our economy. Don't force our consumers to buy products they don't want. Don't place artificial taxes and subsidies on energy.

Let the US boom. Let India boom and let China boom. Guess what will happen? Oil will get expensive -- very expensive. And as it rises, it will create huge economic pressure to develop alternative forms of energy. The problem with oil is that it's still very cheap energy relative to other forms.

Now downstream, that will produce at least two problems. Industrialization of China and India will produce more automobile drivers and more meat-eaters, both of which will drive global warming. But there is a silver lining too, because with industrialization comes the education of women and leads to two-income families which will curb population growth. And curbing population growth is the ultimate form of greenhouse gas control.

So that's my endgame. Grow globally like crazy, raising everyone's standard of living and force oil to get expensive. My long-term play is for population control via industrialization, not trying to convince some San Francisco Prius driver to take one less trip to the smoothie bar.

Your only other alternative is to drop a bunch of nukes on China and India. If you did that, then some hairbrained conservation scheme that's US and Europe-only based might work.

 

[PICK3]

Very good analogy.

olololololol!

 

[nimbus]

We probably do have some impact, but it's also obvious that we can't quantify it nor can we prove the system doesn't correct itself. My problem is that today's climate change hacks are pushing a political agenda -- not a scientific one.

Here's a great example. Let's say that cap and trade works (which it won't). Let's say it works perfectly with zero unintended consequences here at home. So we drop from 6.6B barrels of oil per year to 5.6B barrels -- where do those barrels go? Well they go to China and India of course, where they'll be burned anywhere from 10x to 100x less cleanly. So before, our 6.6B barrels produced "Y" pollution. Now, those barrels can product (5.6/6.6)*Y + (1.0/6.6)*Y*100 pollution. I'm pretty sure that's a bigger number and the best part is, the better cap and trade works, the more pollution we'd actually make.

So to all the climate change fanatics out there who want to make multi-trillion dollar changes to our economy, I have one simple question: What's your end game?

from a CO2 perspective, you can't burn oil "less cleanly." CO2 is always going to a by-product of combustion; how much is released is a property of the oil and has nothing to do with how you burn it. Anytime you use less oil, as long as you substitute with something cleaner (less driving, natural gas, etc.), you are reducing the amount of CO2 that goes to the atmosphere. you are dead wrong about cap and trade

 

[nimbus]

I'm just unconvinced there is a computer powerful enough AND a human designed software simulation that accurately predicts anything 20-50 years from now.

no model is perfectly correct, but they are usually much better than nothing

 

[nimbus]

Personally, I think that the climate is impacted by man's actions. Or are you telling me that pumping the CO2 into the air is good for the environment? I don't see that as a logical conclusion because I can run a small microcosm experiment and produce a similar result.

are you sure about that? i didn't think small microcosm experiments existed to demonstrate global warming. if you got something i'd appreciate a link

 

[mrplunkey]

from a CO2 perspective, you can't burn oil "less cleanly." CO2 is always going to a by-product of combustion; how much is released is a property of the oil and has nothing to do with how you burn it. Anytime you use less oil, as long as you substitute with something cleaner (less driving, natural gas, etc.), you are reducing the amount of CO2 that goes to the atmosphere. you are dead wrong about cap and trade

The carbon has to balance and it's true that the total CO2 capacity of CO2 is determined by the mass of oil being burned.

But if instead of that 2009 Prius, you put it in that 1975 Peugot in the Guan Jo province (you know, the one that gets it's oil changed and tuned-up at the start of every decade), it's also going to make tons of other carbon and nitrogen variants (i.e. Carbon Monoxide).

 

[Mr. dB]

Cap 'n Trade is a bigger scam than even human-induced global warming. All it will do is create a new venue for fatcat speculators to get rich at our expense, and drive up energy prices.

 

[nimbus]

The carbon has to balance and it's true that the total CO2 capacity of CO2 is determined by the mass of oil being burned.

But if instead of that 2009 Prius, you put it in that 1975 Peugot in the Guan Jo province (you know, the one that gets it's oil changed and tuned-up at the start of every decade), it's also going to make tons of other carbon and nitrogen variants (i.e. Carbon Monoxide).

unlike CO2, most air quality concerns like CO are only a local issue; i don't really give a fuck if people are dropping dead from anoxemia in chinese villages

 

[nimbus]

Cap 'n Trade is a bigger scam than even human-induced global warming. All it will do is create a new venue for fatcat speculators to get rich at our expense, and drive up energy prices.

that is all definitely going to happen. but it's not really a scam if it exists

 

[PICK3]

most air quality concerns like CO are a local issue; i don't really give a fuck if people are dropping dead from anoxemia in chinese villages

^^^
racist!

 

[mrplunkey]

unlike CO2, most air quality concerns like CO are only a local issue; i don't really give a fuck if people are dropping dead from anoxemia in chinese villages

And all this time I thought gases diffused when unconfined.

Is there a link to somewhere explaining why CO2 doesn't diffuse throughout the atmosphere?

 

[redsamurai]

It's a fox news "opinion" piece so I"m not sure how much stock if any I want to put in it. But if there is some scientists out there running some bullshit stats distributions to get data to say what they want it to, than they need to be checked. I'm sure people are capable of this because if there is a short term cooling trend the human population, which doesn't think more than 5 years in advance if even that, will let the issue slip. Fact is the ice sheets are retreating quite a bit, that has real world real time ramifications and we need to know if we're the cause of it or if there's multiple causes or fuck we can't do shit about at all even if we were still cavepeople. The capitalists want to push this away because it has the potential to change economic habits of whole economies and the current establishment would get left out in the cold. This is why the worlds govt's need to all pitch in, go and find the best of the best and give them a blank check. Either you find something or you don't.

 

[Dial_tone]

no model is perfectly correct, but they are usually much better than nothing

No doubt. My point is that their input only has to be a little bit off for their output to be way off. If you and I start walking next to each other but one of us is angled 1 degree off...after a few feet we're still close. After a couple hundred miles we're nowhere near each other.

 

[EnderJE]

are you sure about that? i didn't think small microcosm experiments existed to demonstrate global warming. if you got something i'd appreciate a link

Are you saying that you can't create a sealed environment, artificially pump CO2 into the environment and see the outcome with regards to heat / light levels?

My point was not to create a perfect clone of Earth, but to create an experiment to examine the climate based effects of higher CO2.

 

[javaguru]

Why aren't we hearing more about this? Supposed scientists are blatantly caught faking and manipulating data, yet people aren't screaming.

Samoth? WTF? Represent!

Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate' - FOXNews.com

I've been posting about the weak science for a while...it's a religion. Praise be Al Gore!

 

[mrplunkey]

I've been posting about the weak science for a while...it's a religion. Praise be Al Gore!

I believe environmentalism has become a religion to many people who have been displaced from traditional theologies. Once it's raised to a spiritual level, little nuisances like science and evidence become inconsequential.

 

[javaguru]

I believe environmentalism has become a religion to many people who have been displaced from traditional theologies. Once it's raised to a spiritual level, little nuisances like science and evidence become inconsequential.

Any scientists that has fudged their data should be drummed out of science. What am I thinking...it isn't science, it's a religion based on a command doctrine....They should transfer from science to religion. It shakes me to my core that politics have penetrated science to this level....

 

[bakemeacookie]

There's good money in environmental scaring. Think Al Gore wants to say "Hye it'all okay, carry on..."

No one wins nobel prizes by saying everything is good.

c

 

[nimbus]

Are you saying that you can't create a sealed environment, artificially pump CO2 into the environment and see the outcome with regards to heat / light levels?

My point was not to create a perfect clone of Earth, but to create an experiment to examine the climate based effects of higher CO2.

i'm not saying you can't, but i'm not so sure you can either. you really do need to have the conditions resemble earth because CO2 is such a small percentage of the GHGs in our atmosphere that it wouldn't be fair to run an experiment with only CO2 and no water vapor.

i wish someone would do this because i think that is the only way to know for sure if we are causing climate change

 

[nimbus]

And all this time I thought gases diffused when unconfined.

Is there a link to somewhere explaining why CO2 doesn't diffuse throughout the atmosphere?

CO2 does diffuse, into the oceans and plants etc., but the atmospheric concentration is still increasing (this is measured, and i dont think is debatable) and theoretically could affect the GLOBAL climate

global CO concentrations are so low that carbon monoxide typically only affects people in and immediately around the source of emission. once it has a chance to disperse in open air there is typically not a problem. In any case, CO emitted in China is not going to affect anybody living in the U.S., so they can do whatever the fuck they want. if they don't want to make catalytic converters mandatory, then they can watch their people die.

the bottom line is that IF climate change is anthropogenic, CO2 emissions in China are going to effect everybody on the planet. The artic is being hit the hardest by climate change, yet no virtually no CO2 emissions originate from that region. CO emissions in China, however, are pretty much only going to affect the Chinese.

The one thing I will say about a cap and trade though is that it is going to hurt us economically, and doesn't make sense if we are going to be the only country to put ourselves at that disadvantage

 

[mrplunkey]

Any scientists that has fudged their data should be drummed out of science. What am I thinking...it isn't science, it's a religion based on a command doctrine....They should transfer from science to religion. It shakes me to my core that politics have penetrated science to this level....

Here was my favorite email, from Phil Jones (the Director of Climate Research):

"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."

That's the ultimate smoking gun. What more could you possibly want? Look at how lax they are about even talking about it. How comfortable would you have to be that your entire organization is corrupt to even send an email like that?

These guys should be immediately shut down. We've got better things to spend our money on than professionalized fraud.

 

[javaguru]

Everyone knows the Chinese are the best at math and science....China is building fossil fuel plants like nobody's business...issue solved.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

that is all definitely going to happen. but it's not really a scam if it exists

This is true! Because for instance whenever there's a credit card scam, someone's money doesn't exist anymore...it must've never been real lol.

 

[nimbus]

This is true! Because for instance whenever there's a credit card scam, someone's money doesn't exist anymore...it must've never been real lol.

hmm i meant that people making money off climate change policies is not a scam if we really are causing climate change

 

[redsamurai]

this was discussed this morning on stephanopoulus's show. Krugmann himself, who is an economist, admitted that when taken in context the emails aren't nearly as bad as they seem. I'll have to read more about the analysis but apparently the jargon these guys were using meant completely different things and that people who are scientists immediately understood what the guys were really saying but to the rest of us it sounds really really really bad. Who knows. Even though it sounded really bad to me I wasn't about to jump ship on an entire body of work that's been done by scientists from all over the world. Some guys in england who may be fudging their numbers so they get more in grants from their govt. doesn't immediately condemn the entire body of work. But of course to those who want to hear what they want to hear, we see an immediate hystrionic ejaculation of the mouth.

 

[mrplunkey]

Now the lab admits to dumping its original data, but keeping the "value added" (modified) data.

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

 

[-SD-]

Ah yes, the good ol' "Its about context" argument. The favorite "run home to mama" defense of liers and politicians everywhere.

 

[redsamurai]

The proof that the earth is warming is staring me in the face when I look out the window, the only question is whether it's caused by man or not. The arctic ice pack isn't melting away cause Dr. Evil is pointing a giant space based mirror at it. SOmething is happening and it has to be discerned "why" it's happening before we allow the rest of the world to hop on the fossil fuel bandwagon. What just a few feet of sea level rise could cost us and the rest of the world is staggering. If it's inevitable it's inevitable, but find out. This argument that hampering the market for even a nanosecond is sacrilege is old and tired. The human race has to understand that we've progressed to the point where we can have quite definitive impacts on our environments. We're not cave people anymore, we're messing with forces in the universe that could potentially alter the way we live at fundamental levels......so we have to tread cautiously. Somebody is going to have to step up and wall check moore's law.

 

[samoth]

Samoth? WTF? Represent!

Sorry, I represent science, not politics. The only people I see arguing the topic are laypeople and politically-sided people; this thread, like most found on hypertext interweb chatblogs, being no exception.

I do know that accountability and change are difficult for humans, which I suspect is the basis of most GW/CC "debates".

 

[billfred]

Sorry, I represent science, not politics. The only people I see arguing the topic are laypeople and politically-sided people; this thread, like most found on hypertext interweb chatblogs, being no exception.

I do know that accountability and change are difficult for humans, which I suspect is the basis of most GW/CC "debates".

That is so true. Don't know how this became such a political issue.

 

[samoth]

That is so true. Don't know how this became such a political issue.

Has anyone here even read the fourth IPCC assessment report? There's a reason the topic is rarely argued on a technical basis, lol.

 

[samoth]

IPCC (note: it's very long; there's an FAQ, I believe): IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


A concise update to some controversy earlier in the decade: http://www.thescientificworld.com/headeradmin/upload/2007.03.91.pdf


The above is a representation of what scientists are debating. I have absolutely no idea what everyone else is arguing over.

 

[redsamurai]

the argument is being generated by "economists" samoth. People who beleive the march of the market is the salvation of manking. Hinder it for even one nanosecond and we've done something akin to slapping god's mouth. The notion that we impede economic growth for a moment is disastrous to those that have built the overleveraged economic system we have in place today. It relies on the forever expansion of GDP at a certain pace otherwise all the "speculating" in our system get's exposed. This is the heart of the matter. It's simply the fat boys wanting to stay fat forever.

 

[samoth]

the argument is being generated by "economists" samoth.

Shouldn't they be looking for new quant jobs on Wall Street instead of trolling the interwebs? I mean, it sucks to get laid-off pwned, but post-ITE is looking bright with lots of HOAP and CHANGE on the horizon! *cough cough HACK cough* *giggle*

 

[redsamurai]

The problem is that this the old merchant class that's been undercutting the grown men for all of our history. They don't create anything, they just want to sell/market something. And we've sat back and let them create a system where they make us dependant on them. THis is a big issue for them and they're all answering the rally calls. Unfortunately we'll only see movement once "they" have figured out how to profit from it.

Shouldn't they be looking for new quant jobs on Wall Street instead of trolling the interwebs? I mean, it sucks to get laid-off pwned, but post-ITE is looking bright with lots of HOAP and CHANGE on the horizon! *cough cough HACK cough* *giggle*

 

[mrplunkey]

Has anyone here even read the fourth IPCC assessment report? There's a reason the topic is rarely argued on a technical basis, lol.

My favorite part of the fourth IPCC assessment report is page 960 where they list Phil Jones (the architect behind this fraudulent conspiracy) as a contributor/author. Of course, I'm sure we can rest assured everyone else who worked on the report were purely unbiased and authentic.

 

[mrplunkey]

My favorite part of the fourth IPCC assessment report is page 960 where they list Phil Jones (the architect behind this fraudulent conspiracy) as a contributor/author. Of course, I'm sure we can rest assured everyone else who worked on the report were purely unbiased and authentic.

Ooops. Tim Osbourne from the University of East Anglia is listed as a contributor/author on page 963. I'd be interested to see how many other co-conspirators are listed in Annex 2 of the report.

And the best part is, these clowns didn't even see the need to coordinate their conspiracy via voice -- they memorialized it in emails spanning multiple universities and even multiple continents. If they're going to bilk taxpayers and and other funding sources out of millions (or more) dollars with this type of collusion, shouldn't they at least have the decency to do it face-to-face or over the phone?

 

[samoth]

My favorite part of the fourth IPCC assessment report is page 960 where they list Phil Jones (the architect behind this fraudulent conspiracy) as a contributor/author. Of course, I'm sure we can rest assured everyone else who worked on the report were purely unbiased and authentic.

Sorry, I'm not following. Can you direct me to the chapter, section, page, and paragraph of the scientific and/or mathematical discrepancy that you are arguing? Then we can conduct preliminary research via academic journals; if the answer is still not sufficient, we can then finish UG requirements for a competitive PhD program in geochemical environmental atmospheric statistical physics, complete the PdD, finish a few years of post-docing, aquire funding from the government or private sources, propose, run, and publish the experimental results, then report back here in 15 years. Or we can just argue on the internet like typical ignorant layperson proles who barely grasp what these people are doing, omitting and evading technical facts and scientific evidence for finger-pointing and blaming of political parties we personally oppose for generally abstract and vapid reasons. Since I have a feeling we'll be doing the latter, you can be the republican, I'll be the thimble, and we'll both collect $200 every time we pass go.

 

[mrplunkey]

Sorry, I'm not following. Can you direct me to the chapter, section, page, and paragraph of the scientific and/or mathematical discrepancy that you are arguing? Then we can conduct preliminary research via academic journals; if the answer is still not sufficient, we can then finish UG requirements for a competitive PhD program in geochemical environmental atmospheric statistical physics, complete the PdD, finish a few years of post-docing, aquire funding from the government or private sources, propose, run, and publish the experimental results, then report back here in 15 years. Or we can just argue on the internet like typical ignorant layperson proles who barely grasp what these people are doing, omitting and evading technical facts and scientific evidence for finger-pointing and blaming of political parties we personally oppose for generally abstract and vapid reasons. Since I have a feeling we'll be doing the latter, you can be the republican, I'll be the thimble, and we'll both collect $200 every time we pass go.

Sure. I'll make this simple.

- Go to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
- Then go to page 960.
- Then see Phil Jones listed as a contributor/author about mid-way down the left-most column.

Now let's look at excerpts from Phil Jones' leaked emails:

"trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]."

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone"

"We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

"I did get an e-mail from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting e-mails"

"IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on."

What more can you possibly want?

 

[samoth]

What more can you possibly want?

A substantive scientific argument? I neither know nor care what the media is doing.

 

[mrplunkey]

A substantive scientific argument? I neither know nor care what the media is doing.

How do you make a substantive scientific argument using fraudulent data? As recently as today, these same "scientists" have admitted destroying their raw data and preserving only the "value added" (their words, not mine) data.

Maybe we should argue whether Bernie Madoff's fraudulent investment fund returned 17% or 19% per year. Who cares? He was a fraud too.



P.S. I'm all for the de-politicization of science, but this isn't politics. This is multi-university fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud that is spanning continents.

 

[mrplunkey]

I just realized something based on your post #49...

How do you and I know Bernie Madoff was a fraud? Neither you nor I have Ph.D.'s in economics. We've never done a post-doc for a Nobel prize-winning economist, nor have we ever started or managed our own multi-billion dollar investment fund.

I guess it's inappropriate of us to believe he was a fraud since we haven't actually dissected his financial holdings and identified specific discrepancies in his financial reports and tax returns.

 

[jackangel]

samoth looks down upon all of you. know this.

 

[samoth]

How do you make a substantive scientific argument using fraudulent data? As recently as today, these same "scientists" have admitted destroying their raw data and preserving only the "value added" (their words, not mine) data.

Maybe we should argue whether Bernie Madoff's fraudulent investment fund returned 17% or 19% per year. Who cares? He was a fraud too.



P.S. I'm all for the de-politicization of science, but this isn't politics. This is multi-university fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud that is spanning continents.

So one scientist out of tens of thousands makes all data invalid? That's your argument? So by that logic, all jews are evil, money-hungry monsters that will steal your monies. Gotcha, Hitler.

I notice you don't ever say anything about the science -- you just keep reiterating some media or political crap. This is why I never bother with GW/CC discussions... not because it per se lacks any scientific or logical argument, but because I am politically ignorant and I don't find such to have any relevant meaning regarding the actual nature of the topic.

 

[samoth]

samoth looks down upon all of you. know this.

Have you seen any of those techy journals regarding this subject? Half that crap's over mine and nathan's heads.

 

[mrplunkey]

So one scientist out of tens of thousands makes all data invalid? That's your argument? So by that logic, all jews are evil, money-hungry monsters that will steal your monies. Gotcha, Hitler.

I notice you don't ever say anything about the science -- you just keep reiterating some media or political crap. This is why I never bother with GW/CC discussions... not because it per se lacks any scientific or logical argument, but because I am politically ignorant and I don't find such to have any relevant meaning regarding the actual nature of the topic.

Where are you getting it's one scientist? It's a prominent scientist exchanging multiple emails with multiple conspirators from multiple universities. And read a few of the emails -- they're casual in nature. I think it's hilarious that these ninnys who probably wouldn't risk an email that discusses the new secretary's tits can exchange emails discussing their conspiracy. Good times.

I'm willing to bet that some of this falsified data made it into grant applications as well and that makes it criminal fraud -- not simply academic fraud. If I pass around emails about filing a fraudulent tax return, would I get into trouble? What about emails filing a falsified Medicare cost report? How about a falsified investment fund? Are falsified FDA pre-market notifications A-OK now too?

If these guys used their "value added" data on grant applications, they need to be treated like common criminals. But you and I both know that won't happen. I bet they won't even permanently (or temporarily) lose funding. Instead, I'll even predict that within the next 90 days, at least one media outlet will try to portray them as brave heroes who stood-up for the environment.

 

[mrplunkey]

Have you seen any of those techy journals regarding this subject? Half that crap's over mine and nathan's heads.

My quantum mechanics is a little iffy, but that doesn't keep me from realizing that I don't want 100,000 high-energy chest X-rays per year.

 

[samoth]

Where are you getting it's one scientist? It's a prominent scientist exchanging multiple emails with multiple conspirators from multiple universities. And read a few of the emails -- they're casual in nature. I think it's hilarious that these ninnys who probably wouldn't risk an email that discusses the new secretary's tits can exchange emails discussing their conspiracy. Good times.

I'm willing to bet that some of this falsified data made it into grant applications as well and that makes it criminal fraud -- not simply academic fraud. If I pass around emails about filing a fraudulent tax return, would I get into trouble? What about emails filing a falsified Medicare cost report? How about a falsified investment fund? Are falsified FDA pre-market notifications A-OK now too?

If these guys used their "value added" data on grant applications, they need to be treated like common criminals. But you and I both know that won't happen. I bet they won't even permanently (or temporarily) lose funding. Instead, I'll even predict that within the next 90 days, at least one media outlet will try to portray them as brave heroes who stood-up for the environment.

I don't read conspiracy anything. I don't care what breaking story is making Times money, whether it be drunk tigers or horney scientists. They pander to proles, not scientists.

Pharmas, like every area of science, have a history of falsification, for any number of reasons. That doesn't impact the basis of drugs' effects of whatever other analogy you want to use. You still haven't presented any scientific argument, so I don't know what your point is. How does any of this change the fundamental basics? My falsifying atmostpheric spectrum doesn't impact the color of the sky.

X-rays aren't quantum mechanics.

 

[javaguru]

Have you seen any of those techy journals regarding this subject? Half that crap's over mine and nathan's heads.

and yet they're still pretty much clueless about how the environment works....self admitted. There are far too many variables to make accurate predictions about what will happen in fifty or one hundred years. Do humans impact the environment, without a doubt. Can human intervention change the ecosystem on a macro level...that hasn't been shown conclusively...perhaps if we revert to subsistence agriculture but mitigating the consequences might be the best alternative.

 

[samoth]

and yet they're still pretty much clueless about how the environment works....self admitted. There are far too many variables to make accurate predictions about what will happen in fifty or one hundred years. Do humans impact the environment, without a doubt. Can human intervention change the ecosystem on a macro level...that hasn't been shown conclusively...perhaps if we revert to subsistence agriculture but mitigating the consequences might be the best alternative.

Eh, that's like saying we're clueless about QM because we don't understand the maths. Large scale is always difficult for experimentation. There is nothing comparable to particle accelerators with planets.

 

[mrplunkey]

I don't read conspiracy anything. I don't care what breaking story is making Times money, whether it be drunk tigers or horney scientists. They pander to proles, not scientists.

How is the scientists openly admitting that they destroyed their original data and substituted "value added" data a conspiracy? I'm going to take one more shot at this: It isn't the National Enquirer accusing them of anything. It's the scientists themselves openly admitting they created "value added" data and intentionally destroyed the old data. It wasn't lost in a fire. Their dog didn't eat it. It didn't age and degrade over time. It was intentionally destroyed.

Pharmas, like every area of science, have a history of falsification, for any number of reasons. That doesn't impact the basis of drugs' effects of whatever other analogy you want to use.

Try falsifying your pharma data on an FDA application or inquiry, then send-out a flurry of emails discussing your conspiracy and see what happens. You can argue details regarding your study but once you start making stuff up and talking about it, somebody has to go to jail.

You still haven't presented any scientific argument, so I don't know what your point is. How does any of this change the fundamental basics?

There is no scientific argument for fraudulent data. There is no science there either. Treating data that was used by a group of fraudulent conspirators is useless until every iota of falsified data is removed. Otherwise, you're just arguing over how small of a turd I can put in your milk before you'll refuse to drink it. What if the turd only the size of an M&M and the glass is a full 8 ounces?

My falsifying atmostpheric spectrum doesn't impact the color of the sky.

Interesting analogy -- if I see the sky changes every day, but a group of scientists collude to produce fraudulent data and they tell me the sky is constantly purple, I'm not going to question their work. Sure, they'll want to argue with me over a specific chart or a specific technique used to analyze the data, but if it's crap input to begin with, how you process it from there doesn't matter.

X-rays aren't quantum mechanics.

The interaction of an X-ray with atoms in the body could be described by quantum theory. My QM might not be tight, but I do know that it comes down to waves interacting with waves.

 

[javaguru]

Eh, that's like saying we're clueless about QM because we don't understand the maths. Large scale is always difficult for experimentation. There is nothing comparable to particle accelerators with planets.

The crux is about the data that was "modified" to create the computer models making their predictions...which have been inaccurate in predicting climate change. They destroyed their original data set...that makes me suspicious. Years ago I worked with some researchers modeling cell mutation rates as it relates to evolution and I learned a lot about computer models. Biology and evolution are much more predictable than these computer models on climate change that have been shown to be flawed.

 

[samoth]

How is the scientists openly admitting that they destroyed their original data and substituted "value added" data a conspiracy? I'm going to take one more shot at this: It isn't the National Enquirer accusing them of anything. It's the scientists themselves openly admitting they created "value added" data and intentionally destroyed the old data. It wasn't lost in a fire. Their dog didn't eat it. It didn't age and degrade over time. It was intentionally destroyed.



Try falsifying your pharma data on an FDA application or inquiry, then send-out a flurry of emails discussing your conspiracy and see what happens. You can argue details regarding your study but once you start making stuff up and talking about it, somebody has to go to jail.



There is no scientific argument for fraudulent data. There is no science there either. Treating data that was used by a group of fraudulent conspirators is useless until every iota of falsified data is removed. Otherwise, you're just arguing over how small of a turd I can put in your milk before you'll refuse to drink it. What if the turd only the size of an M&M and the glass is a full 8 ounces?



Interesting analogy -- if I see the sky changes every day, but a group of scientists collude to produce fraudulent data and they tell me the sky is constantly purple, I'm not going to question their work. Sure, they'll want to argue with me over a specific chart or a specific technique used to analyze the data, but if it's crap input to begin with, how you process it from there doesn't matter.



The interaction of an X-ray with atoms in the body could be described by quantum theory. My QM might not be tight, but I do know that it comes down to waves interacting with waves.

Okay, enough. What's your point? What fundamentals have this supposed data fradulation changed? A four page thread and this hasn't been brought up even once.

 

[samoth]

The crux is about the data that was "modified" to create the computer models making their predictions...which have been inaccurate in predicting climate change. They destroyed their original data set...that makes me suspicious. Years ago I worked with some researchers modeling cell mutation rates as it relates to evolution and I learned a lot about computer models. Biology and evolution are much more predictable than these computer models on climate change that have been shown to be flawed.

Oh, sorry. I didn't know that this was the only climatory model in existance.

 

[mrplunkey]

and yet they're still pretty much clueless about how the environment works....self admitted. There are far too many variables to make accurate predictions about what will happen in fifty or one hundred years. Do humans impact the environment, without a doubt. Can human intervention change the ecosystem on a macro level...that hasn't been shown conclusively...perhaps if we revert to subsistence agriculture but mitigating the consequences might be the best alternative.

- We don't know how the environment works.
- We're guessing we have some impact on it
- We're not exactly sure what that impact is
- We don't know if the system will fix itself
- We don't know trying to fix it will help
- We don't know trying to fix it might make things worse
- We don't know if we try to fix it and do make a change for better or worse, that some unrelated change may make it better or worse on top of that.

Now if we need to give these guys some funding and encourage them to do apolitical, unbiased, non-agenda based research, I'm all for it. But if they want to drive programs that have a multi-billion or multi-trillion impact on the global economy, they need to answer the above questions beyond a shadow of a doubt. You don't just randomly try things that impact the global economy like some of these proposal do.

 

[mrplunkey]

Okay, enough. What's your point? What fundamentals have this supposed data fradulation changed? A four page thread and this hasn't been brought up even once.

The fundamentals are this: The temperature data that has been used to demonstrate trends, build models and run simulations has been falsified. The data was falsified into a "value added" set and the original data destroyed. The subsequent "valued added" data was used by a number of researchers across the planet to build the global warming case.

Right now, until cleansed, it is only safe to assume 100% of the information used to make the global warming argument could have been tainted. They need to treat this like an e-coli outbreak. Find everyone who received tainted data and follow it all the way to where it was consumed.

Every participant in the climate community should be submitting their data and email traffic as part of a global investigation right now.

 

[javaguru]

Oh, sorry. I didn't know that this was the only climatory model in existance.

No sarcasm needed bro...I question the assumptions made. Heat islands are a serious issue in all the computer models. Nobody gets a pass in the scientific process. I'm concerned that it's becoming a religion...something you can't question. If I level criticism that is without merit then shoot down my idiocy but don't declare the "debate closed" that's religion and Al Gore is the high priest.

 

[samoth]

Right now, until cleansed, it is only safe to assume 100% of the information used to make the global warming argument could have been tainted. They need to treat this like an e-coli outbreak. Find everyone who received tainted data and follow it all the way to where it was consumed.

If you apply that logic to any other industry, it ceases to exist. Hell, you can negate the entirety of science. Not much of an argument if that's your basis. I was just asking for one single data set, but since you can't even give me that (in two pages given over 1k pages to reference), I will just turn this over to those who prefer conspiracy and politicking to science.

 

[nimbus]

Sorry, I represent science, not politics. The only people I see arguing the topic are laypeople and politically-sided people; this thread, like most found on hypertext interweb chatblogs, being no exception.

transportation policy analysis w.r.t. climate change is my job you brat

 

[samoth]

No sarcasm needed bro...I question the assumptions made. Heat islands are a serious issue in all the computer models. Nobody gets a pass in the scientific process. I'm concerned that it's becoming a religion...something you can't question. If I level criticism that is without merit then shoot down my idiocy but don't declare the "debate closed" that's religion and Al Gore is the high priest.

The "debate" ill-defined to most, apparently. People don't seem to know what they are arguing. (Yet they always bring up politics and Gore's name. Why?)

 

[javaguru]

The "debate" ill-defined to most, apparently. People don't seem to know what they are arguing. (Yet they always bring up politics and Gore's name. Why?)

If you can dismiss heat islands and the methods of data collection...I'll jump on board and move back to rural Ohio and plow my field with a horse.

 

[redsamurai]

Okay, enough. What's your point? What fundamentals have this supposed data fradulation changed? A four page thread and this hasn't been brought up even once.

don't you see what he's doing to you samoth? This is their game, and they're good at it.

 

[redsamurai]

So many things get glossed over in this debate it's ridiculous. Everything comes down to either the world is going to end or it's not and we need to go about changing absolutely nothing. I like Java's responses, he seems to be trying to sift through the bullshit and find the middle ground. Take allergies for instance, no big deal? Try telling that to people who get so hard it's tough going to work. Allergies have exploded the last 5 years because plants are blooming longer and harder because they're soaking up the excess CO2. Is it inconceivable to think that at this rate we could see the air in some places become so dense with these particulates that everybody will suffer allergies and we'll all be walking around with masks. I for one have no problem telling the industrial complex to sit back and chill the fuck out so that it doesn't get to the point where I have to wake up every morning and read the pollen count for the day like one reads the weather. Hmmmm, looks like today I'll have to wear my stage 4 anti pollen suit. Sounds like big business though, I should get in on the ground floor in something like that. Imagine, we can pollute our environment so hard that we basically strongarm everyone into having to buy all this shit just to cope with the outside world. Hell we can base the whole economy off that.

I do not like where this shit is going.

 

[mrplunkey]

If you apply that logic to any other industry, it ceases to exist. Hell, you can negate the entirety of science. Not much of an argument if that's your basis. I was just asking for one single data set, but since you can't even give me that (in two pages given over 1k pages to reference), I will just turn this over to those who prefer conspiracy and politicking to science.

Do you disagree with any of these facts?

- CRU is one of the world's leading research centers and data it produces is used throughout the Climate Change industry.

- CRU has admitted it has thrown-away over 150 years worth of raw data and have instead replaced it with "value added" data.

- Emails from the director of CRU go at least as far back as November 1999 discussing how they had to "hide the decline" in data as far back as 1961

So is it fair to say any studies or models derived from any of CRU's data are tainted? We know the fraud goes back to at least 1961 now -- and it could go back a full 150 years.

You're using an interesting argument about this CRU data. It would be like a doctor saying: "You're in perfect health except for that stage four pancreatic cancer you have. But let's not get hung-up on something that's only 2% of your entire body."

 

[chris302001]

value added sounds like something on sale at walmart.

okay im done

 

[mrplunkey]

value added sounds like something on sale at walmart.

okay im done

Those were their words, not mine. I'm guessing it sounds better than: "made-up" or "fraudulent".

 

[ismaele00]

Alleged CRU emails

 

[ismaele00]

Arctic sea ice conditions are even worse than feared after a survey found that ice detected as older and thicker by satellites is actually thin and fragile, a prominent Canadian researcher reported Friday.

Much less ice for polar bears, expert says - Climate Change- msnbc.com

National Data Snow and Ice Center (NDSIC):

Jan 1980 Southern Hemisphere = 4.7 million sq km
Jan 1980 Northern Hemisphere = 15.0 million sq km

Total Jan 1980 = 19.7 million sq km

Jan 2009 Southern Hemisphere = 5.8 million sq km
Jan 2009 Northern Hemisphere = 14.1 million sq km

Total Jan 2009 = 19.9 million sq km

 

[mrplunkey]

Maybe they've been telling us the truth the entire time.

It really is Man-Made Global Warming. It's just being made with spreadsheets and email instead of by cars and livestock.

 

[ismaele00]

Maybe they've been telling us the truth the entire time.

It really is Man-Made Global Warming. It's just being made with spreadsheets and email instead of by cars and livestock.

Antropogenic Global Warming.
I don't know if "antropogenic" is right in English.

 

[mrplunkey]

I was just watching a debate over Climategate and heard this argument put forth from Nat Keohane, from the Environmental Defense Fund.

He said that even if global warming isn't true yet we spend trillions on "clean" energy, think of all the good things we get (i.e. no more reliance on imported oil). But if it is true, think of what a devastatingly bad future we will have without addressing it.

I thought to myself: I've heard this argument before. This is the argument for Christianity made in Pascal's wager. The irony that it came from a brilliant and accomplished mathematician only makes it better.

Climate Change is truly taking-on every aspect of a religion.

 

[ismaele00]

Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit.

Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support.” Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said: “I have accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations.
“We will announce details of the Independent Review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Professor Peter Liss, FRS, CBE, will become acting director.”

CRU Update 1 December - University of East Anglia (UEA)

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty - Yahoo! News

 

[redsamurai]

In my mind it's pretty clear what happened here, a couple douche bags were defending their turf at the expense of scientific integrity. Too many other reputable institutes that get funding no matter what findings they publish say there is something to the link between man and global warming, to what degree is the issue and are there other factors contributing. So at the base of this argument is do we err on the side of caution or do we move full steam ahead with technological development and what happens happens. There's got to be a compromise somewhere and we have to come to it, that's all.