Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

vauge · 11-21-09, 12:48 PM

Wow, this is some crazy stuff!! Unsure if I actually believe in global warming per say,but I do agree that we need to keep our house clean. Regardless of your position on the idea, this is an interesting read.

Quote:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

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.

Much more than you could hope for here: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

Joe1991 · 11-21-09, 01:24 PM

oh no, not you too Vauge!

Please focus on the real science, not this happy horse****.

Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth
Climate Change | U.S. EPA
United States Global Change Research Program
RealClimate
Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology
Science News, Articles and Information | Scientific American

Orion · 11-21-09, 01:33 PM

I would need to see more than a telegraph article to question the past decade of research. Even if anthropogenic warming is false, human pollution and habitat encroachment is still destroying the planet, therefore there is no excuse.

Sir Loin · 11-21-09, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vauge

Wow, this is some crazy stuff!! Unsure if I actually believe in global warming per say,but I do agree that we need to keep our house clean. Regardless of your position on the idea, this is an interesting read.

Much more than you could hope for here: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

To be honest this is not really news to me, policy has been the push behind this "science" for some time now. And you can already see that some people just don't want to have to deal with inconvenient facts and would rather admonish you to ignore the same and read the facts they are comfortable with you familiarizing yourself. Chuckle.

Joe1991 · 11-21-09, 02:47 PM

Realclimate answers this well, but I don't want to paste a long read:

RealClimate: The CRU hack

snippet:

Quote:

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.

Sir Loin · 11-21-09, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe1991

Realclimate answers this well, but I don't want to paste a long read:

RealClimate: The CRU hack

snippet:

And so ya know, even thought it appears that some outright lying and fabrication might be exposed in all of this, it is not really a big deal! Just all a part of the scientific process, continue to push on as if this was the case!

Joe1991 · 11-21-09, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

And so ya know, even thought it appears that some outright lying and fabrication might be exposed in all of this, it is not really a big deal! Just all a part of the scientific process, continue to push on as if this was the case!

If there was anything like that, then yes, the scientific process flushes out all the B.S.
2+2 will always equal 4, no matter how much poo the deniers fling at the wall.

Sir Loin · 11-21-09, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe1991

If there was anything like that, then yes, the scientific process flushes out all the B.S.
2+2 will always equal 4, no matter how much poo the deniers fling at the wall.

Laughably redundant indulgence on your part there sir and hardly very thoughtful. Me, I think I'll wait to see what really shakes out of the investigation of this matter before I'll start paying attention to those rushing to say, nothing here move along, pay no attention to the men behind the curtains and their "special" calculators! Of course as an admitted passionate adherent of AGW, opps it has been changed to "climate change" now, it is not surprising that you feel compelled to try to rationalize away the possible implications of this story.

The OP question has already been answered. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? Clearly the answer is no, this information like all inconvenient information not in lock step agreement with the AGW theory is ignored and dismissed. Usually by people arguing that AGW skeptics are ignoring or dismissing critical data and information.

And the kazoo band played on..................

Joe1991 · 11-21-09, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Of course as an admitted passionate adherent of AGW, opps it has been changed to "climate change" now, it is not surprising that you feel compelled to try to rationalize away the possible implications of this story.

I'm only an adherent to science and best evidence.

If there were any substantive arguments that altered the current science from these emails, I would welcome them.

My motto, in all things, is the old maxim: "Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

Sir Loin · 11-21-09, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe1991

I'm only an adherent to science and best evidence.

If there were any substantive arguments that altered the current science from these emails, I would welcome them.

My motto, in all things, is the old maxim: "Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”

You're only the same person who in the first reply to this thread tried to dismiss the story as happy horse****. You missed out, purposefully and clearly knee jerkedly, that the point of the story is that as has often been charged, there appears to be some happy horse**** afoot.

Happy horse**** like these items in the story:

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

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 !”

So if you are all about the science, then you should be concerned at what may have just been uncovered here.

11-21-09, 01:24 PM	#2
Joe1991 Gnome Chomsky Join Date: May 2009 Last Seen: 03-11-10 06:37 PM Location: TX Posts: 1,789 Thanks: 1,801 Thanked 817 Times in 447 Posts Lean: Liberal Gender:	Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? oh no, not you too Vauge! Please focus on the real science, not this happy horse****. Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth Climate Change \| U.S. EPA United States Global Change Research Program RealClimate Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology Science News, Articles and Information \| Scientific American

11-21-09, 01:33 PM	#3
Orion Via Negativa Join Date: Jun 2008 Last Seen: Today 06:11 PM Location: Canada Posts: 4,924 Thanks: 1,388 Thanked 2,036 Times in 1,241 Posts Gender:	Re: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? I would need to see more than a telegraph article to question the past decade of research. Even if anthropogenic warming is false, human pollution and habitat encroachment is still destroying the planet, therefore there is no excuse.
	__________________ "All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible." T. Lawrence

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joe1991 For This Useful Post:
Catawba, Muhadeeb

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Orion For This Useful Post:
Catawba, Djoop, Joe1991

The Following User Says Thank You to Sir Loin For This Useful Post:
Goshin

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joe1991 For This Useful Post:
Catawba, Orion

The Following User Says Thank You to Sir Loin For This Useful Post:
BmanMcfly

The Following User Says Thank You to Joe1991 For This Useful Post:
Catawba

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sir Loin For This Useful Post:
Ethereal, rebelbuc, reefedjib

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joe1991 For This Useful Post:
Catawba, Middleground

The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Sir Loin For This Useful Post:
BmanMcfly, DarkWizard12, Dav, Ethereal, Gill, Goshin, Hugh_Akston, MrVicchio, rebelbuc, reefedjib, Strucky, WI Crippler