Global Warming or Global Scandal?

[Trout]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

Telegraph UK

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”.

© source where applicable

[Tiggy]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

Telegraph UK

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”.

© source where applicable

How many times are you guys going to start a thread on this same story? Weren't the first three repetitions enough? Even Mossy started one yesterday

- T

[mossrose]

How many times are you guys going to start a thread on this same story? Weren't the first three repetitions enough? Even Mossy started one yesterday

- T

:smugmossy:

[MooseOnTheLoose]

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”.

What, even greater than the theory of evolution?

(Here Tiggy, Tiggy. Here boy!)

[Trout]

How many times are you guys going to start a thread on this same story? Weren't the first three repetitions enough? Even Mossy started one yesterday

- T

Because if we say it enough times you may start to think it's true, Tigster.

[mossrose]

Because if we say it enough times you may start to think it's true, Tigster.

Trouty, that's brilliant!

It's exactly what the global warming proponents did!

[grmorton]

Trouty, that's brilliant!

It's exactly what the global warming proponents did!

And they controlled the peer review process to make sure that theirs was the only message out there. Sadly this affair has damaged a large number of things other than merely global warming.

When an evolutionist says to a young earth creationist, "Show me your peer-reviewed papers supporting YEC." The YEC can now, with confidence point to this sad episode of sheepleism among scientists and say, "Clearly you all don't allow dissenting opinions to be published.

When a geologist tells a YEC to look at the data, the yec can now, with confidence point to this sad affair, among others and say, "You all alter and twist the data to fit your preconceptions."

And when we protest that we don't do that, they will say "You can only say that because your emails haven't been hacked. When they are, we will know that you too do it."

And I have caught a few arguments used by AGW proponents that are also used by those arguing for evolution. We say, "Thousands of peer reviewed studies show that our position is correct." But now that at least part of those studies are found to be based upon fraud, all those studies must now be thrown out and the conclusions re-examined. Our ability to claim that studies support our position is based upon the trust we have in those studies. When that trust is betrayed, we can't use those studies to support our position any longer.

The sad thing that the climatologists lost site of is a very simple thing.

Ethics matters.

The big looser in all this is that people no longer pay attention to the data. The climatologists didn't pay attention to the data which was contradictory to their position. The YECs don't pay attention to geologic data contradictory to their position. But in my opinion the yecs are harmless. They aren't wanting to destroy the economy by taxing everything in sight based upon their fraudulent view of science. Climatologists are very dangerous for precisely what they want to do with their fraudulent view of science.

[Raphael]

How many times are you guys going to start a thread on this same story? Weren't the first three repetitions enough? Even Mossy started one yesterday

- T

perhaps Tiggy the issue is people are getting sick of some scientists telling us we're all going to die, unless we go back to being cave men at a cost that is going to cripple already fragile economies, while scigning over our resources to a bunch of people we have no trust in.

All on the basis of what some (indeed not all) scientists saying where they have steadfastly refused to reveal how their models of global destruction work, nor the algorithms behind them.

Does the climate change? Without a doubt. Is man responsible for some of that change? Again no doubt there, the question is how much is man responsible for.

Those scientists who are claiming that it's all man's fault and along with Ban Ki Moon, Al Gore and Prince Charles say that unless we all (except for them) stop using anything that emits carbon etc. have yet to prove that it is man's fault and they've just managed to shred their credibility even further.

Prove that climate change isn't cyclic; Prove that Man is solely responsible (or atleast the greatest contributer) of that change; Answer why modern thermometers are so inaccurate that they need adjusting, yet the older ones aren't adjusted (don't give me that crap of "we don't know what to adjust them by").

Solar activity is plainly one of the biggest contributers to changes in the climate, as it's our source of heat, this ties in with the lack of activity from the sun this year giving us some of the coldest winters on record. Add to that the recently discovered fact that El'nino contributes to 40% of temperature variation and you're not left with a whole lot to blame humans for, especially since the data is suspect.

[Tiggy]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

Telegraph UK

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”.

© source where applicable

"Greatest scandal in modern science"



You Faux News followers crack me up!

Let's recap, shall we?

Someone hacks into one climate center out of the hundreds run by many different nations across the globe. They steal the personal emails of a very small number scientists expressing their personal opinions about those who are trying to use political means to undermine the scientists' work. Out of all the data that is stolen comes just a handful of inflammatory statements given with no context whatsoever that may further explain what that particular conversation was about. Finally, there is no evidence presented that any publicly released data anywhere was ever actually fraudulently manipulated. NONE. AT. ALL.

Still, from that pile of nothing you somehow conclude that every scientist in every climate related field in the world for the last 50 years is part of a big conspiracy to produce fraudulent data and steal your money.

Maybe you guys should consider what wasn't found:

- No talk of a global conspiracy to produce fraudulent data
- No orders from the evil science headquarters
- No guidelines for producing this 'fraudulent' data so it will be consilient with all the other "fraudulent" data produced worldwide.
- No evidence of a systematic global conspiracy to stop AGW deniers from publishing
- No talk of payoffs, or kickbacks, or bribes to get all those scientists to buy into the conspiracy



Have any of you ever stopped to ask yourself what these tens of thousands of evil scientist 'conspirators' would get out of this elaborate fraud that would make it worth risking their careers? Money? Power? Hot chicks (or hot dudes)? How do you think the conspirators managed to keep this so secret for so many years without a single person spilling the beans?

Of course this hack was like a hit of Maui Wowie for the AGW deniers. They'll scream and wail and cry 'dirty leftist liberal conspiracy!!' for a few weeks, and this will all blow over. If there was any actual wrongdoing it will come to light and any perpetrators will be punished. Being caught doing actual fraud is the kiss of death in the scientific community. Empty bluster from a group of nutters is not. So go ahead, beat your chests and stomp your feet if it makes you feel better. Don't forget to watch out for the black helicopters though.

- T

[Raphael]

Someone hacks into one climate center out of the hundreds run by many different nations across the globe.

Which just happens to be the one who developed the dataset widely used for the historical comparisons. Oops.
The one which has developed many of the models used as a basis for CC used but other centres. Oops.
The one that developed the statistical software used. Oops (I feel sorry for the developer whose notes cover this)
The main centre in the UK. Oops.
The one recognised widely as one of the leading institues for AGW. Oops
The ones who have refused to reveal how their calculations work (and based on the notes of the afore mentioned developer are a load of bollocks). Oops

Spin it how you will Tiggy, we're not dealing with some backwater research unit but one of the foremost units upon whose data the majority rely one.

[Tiggy]

perhaps Tiggy the issue is people are getting sick of some scientists telling us we're all going to die, unless we go back to being cave men at a cost that is going to cripple already fragile economies, while scigning over our resources to a bunch of people we have no trust in.

Big fat strawman. Was that left over from Halloween?

All on the basis of what some (indeed not all) scientists saying where they have steadfastly refused to reveal how their models of global destruction work, nor the algorithms behind them.

Some info is public, some is private and proprietary. No private science institution is under any obligation to provide confidential information just because you demand it.

Does the climate change? Without a doubt. Is man responsible for some of that change? Again no doubt there, the question is how much is man responsible for.

Have you been following these threads at all? That's what I have been saying over and over since day 1.

Well said. The few things I think that are not in dispute are

1. The Earth is getting warmer
2. Human caused pollution is making the effect worse.

Just how much we are quickening the process is still unclear. Still, as you point out it is only prudent to reduce the human effect to lessen the severity of the coming melt.

An analogy I like to use is that we're in a car driving down a steep hill towards a brick wall at the bottom. Some of our speed is due to natural gravity, some is due to us having our foot on the accelerator. It's only common sense to take our foot off the gas and put it on the brake. We may still hit the wall, but we will hit it later, and we will hit it with less force.

I seem to be the only one with a middle position around here

Those scientists who are claiming that it's all man's fault and along with Ban Ki Moon, Al Gore and Prince Charles say that unless we all (except for them) stop using anything that emits carbon etc. have yet to prove that it is man's fault and they've just managed to shred their credibility even further.

Prove that climate change isn't cyclic; Prove that Man is solely responsible (or atleast the greatest contributer) of that change; Answer why modern thermometers are so inaccurate that they need adjusting, yet the older ones aren't adjusted (don't give me that crap of "we don't know what to adjust them by").

Another big fat strawman. I don't know of anyone anywhere who says it is all man's fault. The evidence shows it is partially our fault, and the idea is we should do something about reducing the pollution to help reduce our effects. Why is that such a bad thing?

Solar activity is plainly one of the biggest contributers to changes in the climate, as it's our source of heat, this ties in with the lack of activity from the sun this year giving us some of the coldest winters on record. Add to that the recently discovered fact that El'nino contributes to 40% of temperature variation and you're not left with a whole lot to blame humans for, especially since the data is suspect.

The fact we may be catching a break with natural fluctuations to mitigate the human produced part of the rise doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to cut the pollution. We still have to eventually breath the stuff that comes out of smokestacks, and drink the crud being dumped into the rivers.

- T

[Tiggy]

Which just happens to be the one who developed the dataset widely used for the historical comparisons. Oops.
The one which has developed many of the models used as a basis for CC used but other centres. Oops.
The one that developed the statistical software used. Oops (I feel sorry for the developer whose notes cover this)
The main centre in the UK. Oops.
The one recognised widely as one of the leading institues for AGW. Oops
The ones who have refused to reveal how their calculations work (and based on the notes of the afore mentioned developer are a load of bollocks). Oops

Spin it how you will Tiggy, we're not dealing with some backwater research unit but one of the foremost units upon whose data the majority rely one.

The private opinions in private emails of the scientists involved is not germane to any charges of deliberate fraud.

I still haven't seen one single instance of any publicly released data anywhere being actually fraudulently manipulated. Not one.

Tell me again the motive for all these thousands of scientists worldwide to risk their careers by participating in this massive conspiracy to commit fraud? I seem to have missed that one too.

- T

[Cow Poke]

Have any of you ever stopped to ask yourself what these tens of thousands of evil scientist 'conspirators' would get out of this elaborate fraud that would make it worth risking their careers?
- T

MegaBuck Grant Money

[Raphael]

Big fat strawman. Was that left over from Halloween?

Yes, that is why Greenpeace in NZ is calling for a reduction to us using 60% of the emmisions there were in 1990...When there were a billion less people. So maybe not quite caveman levels but certainly massive steps back

Some info is public, some is private and proprietary. No private science institution is under any obligation to provide confidential information just because you demand it.

When they are demanding an action that is going cost me personally a lot of money you better believe I will demand the workings behind their sums.

Also I thought science was meant to include transparancy.

Have you been following these threads at all? That's what I have been saying over and over since day 1.

Is that why you're constantly criticising Glenn for saying the same thing? (heck you're even trying to paint him as a hypocrite with your sig quote)

I seem to be the only one with a middle position around here

You have a very warped concept of the middle.

Another big fat strawman. I don't know of anyone anywhere who says it is all man's fault. The evidence shows it is partially our fault, and the idea is we should do something about reducing the pollution to help reduce our effects. Why is that such a bad thing?

If mans contribution to CC is negliable, then there are other issues that need to be sorted out, including other conservation issues.

The fact we may be catching a break with natural fluctuations to mitigate the human produced part of the rise doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to cut the pollution. We still have to eventually breath the stuff that comes out of smokestacks, and drink the crud being dumped into the rivers.

No-one said we haven't got any repsonsibilities, but have you even paid attention to what Greenpeace and the other econuts are demanding comes out of Copenhagen?

The private opinions in private emails of the scientists involved is not germane to any charges of deliberate fraud.

Emails were not the only things the hackers grabbed, they also grabbed computer code and other relevant information. The code comments left by one of the developers trying to write the modelling software is more damning that the emails, because it reveals that without cherrypicking data, he could not replicate the data previously outputted.

I still haven't seen one single instance of any publicly released data anywhere being actually fraudulently manipulated. Not one.

you need to learn to read a little then. The talk about having to "correct" the current reading make it highly suspiscious. At at the very least there needs to be an open investigation before the CRU's data can be considered credible.

Tell me again the motive for all these thousands of scientists worldwide to risk their careers by participating in this massive conspiracy to commit fraud? I seem to have missed that one too.

Pick one: Ideology, Money, Need to Publish etc.

[grmorton]

MegaBuck Grant Money

How right you are, and you forget power and influence, something people will do almost anything for. Today when I was reading my Nature magazine I ran into an interesting article

Colin Macilwain, "Experts and Democracy," Nature 462 Nov 19, 2009, p. 275

The relationship between advisers and government is distinct to each society. In the United States, for example, the party affiliation of most citizens, including scientists, is in the public domain. Some staff advisers, as well as members of advisory panels on contentious topics, are selected, in part, on party political grounds."


"In some European nations, including Britain, senior scientists manage to stay above the party-political fray. But this approach carries its own hazards. One is that there is less circulation of advisers when parties move in and out of power. Another is the conceit that these advisers have no political views of their own, and speak only for science."
"Yet the delivery of scientific advice on contentious policy matters is inherently political."

© source where applicable

And what does Nature say is the outcome of this cozy relationship?

Colin Macilwain, "Experts and Democracy," Nature 462 Nov 19, 2009, p. 275

"For the scientists, this partnership has worked well. Money has poured in to universities, with the science budget doubling since 1997 in real terms to £6 billion (US$10 billion). More than 70 scientific advisory panels, involving hundreds of scientists, have exercised a growing influence on national policy.""This partnership has offered the nation several advantages, including the revival of the universities and a more-informed public discourse on issues such as global warming. But the benefits to Labour have been less clear-cut. The money invested in science has not triggered the industrial modernization so fervently sought by Brown."

© source where applicable

It seems that some people don't read the scientific literature where things like the above ARE discussed. Why anyone would be so abysmally ignorant as to think that money doesn't tempt scientists is way way beyond me.