Wallace advances falsehoods that CRU emails show scientists were data "fudgers," "tried to suppress opposition"
December 06, 2009 9:57 am ET
From the December 6 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Bill O'Reilly, "We don't have all the data in yet but we think General Electric may have something to do with the I.E.D's that are killing our Troops in Iraq & Afghanistan"
Gretchen Carlson, "We have Hostile Enemies here at home, Ted Kennedy thinks the Senate should vote on sending more troops to Iraq"
Rupert Murdoch, "I never said Obama made Racist Statements"
Can anyone guess what Chris Wallace had to say about any of the above topics?
Mr. News
really, you man you didn't want to say the hacked e-mails?
interesting.
Go ahead tell me they were so stupid they got "hacked".. why trust any of their research if they are that stupid?
I've taken classes on global warming, and I know that it occurs and that it is cyclical. It's MAN'S degree of involvement in the phenomenon that I question. And that is what science is about: questions.
I also know that scientists can be fallible. SO, what do the emails show, if not that SOME scientists were "fudging?"
How about your own illiteracy, imadork...
Well, I would say that it has been validated that most of the emails are genuine. There still is the question as to whether any of them were edited or maybe released out of context to the actual email thread.
What hasn't been proved is that anyone was misrepresenting any data.
The only issue that I am aware of is the conversation that was ongoing over some of them being a little "peeved" about an article that was published that they felt had bypassed the peer review process. All that really proves is that climate scientist are just like everyone else and can act petty at times.
Oh, by the way. Everyone has an "agenda".
Your agenda may be world peace, or proving mans affect on the climate, it is still an agenda.
"scientist are just like everyone else and can act petty at times"
I agree completely, having seen it myself.
"it has been validated that most of the emails are genuine. There still is the question as to whether any of them were edited or maybe released out of context to the actual email thread."
Absolutely. You hit the nail on the head.
"Everyone has an "agenda'."
Yep. Even scientists. That's one of the reasons for the peer review processes - not only to weed out the authors who push an agenda over sound science, but multiple reviewers typically cross-check each others own agendas. And each journal has a different set of reviewers, so multiply the possibility of collusion by the number of journals, and the probability shrinks to near zero really fast.
It ain't perfect, but it works pretty well.
http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own-words-stolen-cru-emails
I wouldn't trust anyone that can't secure data to perform climate modeling... pathetic...
First of all, if it's a question, finish with a question mark. My, the things we miss when we skip school.
Second of all, "they" didn't "let their e-mails be stolen" anymore than bank employees let the money in their bank get stolen. There have been major thefts of e-mails and other information from many places, both corporate and educational, and it simply means that the battle between hackers and IT people is never finished.
Next time you go to the doctor, he should look into your ear and say "Hello... HELLO... Is there anything in there?"
"It's MAN'S degree of involvement in the phenomenon that I question."
Personal attacks aside, you are absolutely correct in questioning anything. That is our right and duty as thinking humans.
Nothing wrong about being a skeptic. Skeptics, which scientists are, question what they see and hear. They form an opinion based on the facts at hand. They may doubt something, because they aren't convinced themselves about an issue. But they still keep an open mind about it. Each skeptic realizes that they may not have all the facts. So they are open to changing their opinions as the facts become known to them.
Deniers on the other hand, form an opinion first, then collect only facts that support their opinion, while dismissing anything that counters that claim. They use the fallacy of "Argument By Selective Observation."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#selective
A skeptic says, "I'm not convinced about humans causing climate change." A denier says, "There is no climate change."
The skeptic leaves open the possibility that perhaps they don't have all the info to form an opinion, but the info may be out there. The denier just dismisses the issue out of hand, because their opinion is formed and immovable, regardless of any facts to the contrary.
Now, for the general population who are climate experts, why would we "believe" the claims of human-caused climate change?
To explain, let me borrow from an earlier post of mine...
If you were a gambler, ideally you'd want to bet on a "sure thing", right? Sure things are hard to come by, so savvy gamblers settle for the most likely scenario to gauge when to bet, and when to hold.
In horse races, horses are handicapped based on evidence of past performance. Same goes for sports athletes.
In all cases, evidence leads to most likely outcomes.
The independently collected and verified proxy data, all strongly indicates the same scenario (the one you'd want to bet on) - that global warming is real, and it's cased primarily by green house gas emissions.
Personally, I know I don't have, or would even understand all the facts. So I'd prefer to put my money on the most likely scenario and go with the expert opinions of scientists and their consensus on climate change.
After all, I don't understand medical science, but I look to my Dr. to be the expert in the field.
Here's a good site that lines up a lot of the deniers' arguments, and why they don't make sense: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Now, for the general population who are NOT climate experts, why would we "believe" the claims of human-caused climate change?
I think that there are deniers on the the other side as well, as evidenced by the emails, that deny the valid arguments of those who argue against man's involvement.
The "consensus" is that there IS global warming and it's caused primarily by green house gas emissions. What is NOT a consensus, is that man is the primary contributor.
I, and many like me, understand that there are many who just don't know, but have an opinion. Some can't always distinguish between ignorance (and we are all ignorant about something), and stubbornness. And that happens on both sides.
As for me, I've seen enough evidence that says there is consensus that we are causing global warming. As I said before, I may not understand all the science behind this (and I have a Physics degree), but I am reasonable enough to know that there's too much evidence out there to say this has been faked, as the deniers try to proclaim.
If I were to bet on it, I'd put my money on the safe bet - the consensus that there is global warming, and we're causing it.
Here are some sites that discuss the role we play in increasing greenhouse gasses.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
And my favorite site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
"Global warming" ended the last ice-age. There weren't many automobiles or industries back then to blame the warming on either. Global warming is cyclical.
"but you are absolutely wrong on there being a consensus that WE are causing global warming"
Now you speak with certainty, like you know the facts.
Ok, then what ARE the facts?
What's your evidence that there's no consensus?
There's a long list of reputable scientific organizations that all agree on the consensus.
What proof to you have that this isn't so?
Do you know what causes ice ages?
I give you links to reputable sites. Just where's your evidence to prove you can be so certain?
At least I know what I don't know, and am willing to believe reputable scientists, and scientific organizations, due to their vast experience in their fields.
On what basis do you set such firm views?
So, which is it? Skeptic or denier?
Easy to understand why/how the climate changes over time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
The FACTUAL consensus is that the earth has been on a warming trend. This is not really disputable, because climate has been changing since the climate developed.
What is in dispute is MAN'S role in climate change. Some scientists think that man is the primary factor. Others thank that man plays a small role.
Here's a question for you: What caused the globe to "warm" and end the last ice age, seeing that there weren't evil corporations and cars around back then?
You aren't a skeptic. You are a denier who poses as a skeptic. I can tell by the way you ignore the links I kindly posted for you, and are ratcheting up your rhetoric. It must have been hard for you to hold back, acting like a skeptic.
You, like all deniers have not desire to even have an honest discussion about the data. This is my last post to you. You are a time-waster. I don't have the time to educate you on how to do on-line research. That's your problem.
Besides, anything anyone says to you that doesn't fit your ignorant view of the world is dismissed off-hand anyway.
Wallow in your own ignorance.
Here are more links for you, but you'll just ignore them anyway.
PS - you may want to change your moniker. "Dork" will now be tagged as another denier, and a complete waste of time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html
http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/ice-age2.htm
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/role-of-consensus-in-science.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/programs/policy/course/Sheperdstown%202003/documents/mccarthy2_03.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm
Questions were asked that reauire just a little thought instead of pointing to a bunch of "deniers" (those that deny reality).
Will it be "I read a brochure on climate change while in the vicinity of a college" tomorrow?
You took classes-- no wait a minute, you had to take a CLASS. Man's involvement is a legit question- no wait, "Global Warming ended the last ice-age," when there "weren't many automobilies or industries," so "global warming is cyclical." Sometime between 12 and 4:15 PM, you solved this "riddle," I guess, and became a lot less open to theories. Did you take a class this afternoon?
And I thought this was a true skeptic. {:-b
The deniers are getting better at holding of their inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks to come off as a skeptic.
Who knows. Maybe this schmuck really thinks he/she's a skeptic.
I'm done with that denier.
Go for it. Have fun. ;-)
simple question - What ended the last ice-age? simple answer Global climate change, duh! in this case global warming. Duh! or maybe you believe the Earth interior is millions of degrees... Come on use you mink not your links...
The funniest thing is when you have no answer you start in on this "denier" stuff... really cute...
Global Climate Change is real has been real since the Earth came into existence, and will be true long after man is gone.
The fact that Wallace leads his question the way he does just proves that he is biased.
Where is the conservative outraged that someone "hacked" these computer systems and released personal emails to the public.
Didn't someone "hack" Simply Sarah's email? I could have sworn I heard mulitple conservatives having a conniption fit over that.
But, this is kinda different. I mean, the information that came from the hacked emails is disturbing. Yes, it's terrible that people are hacking emails, but that doesn't excuse the disturbing information of the emails.
So you are an "ends justify the means" kind of guy?
Even though I think the situation is different I don't think it is excusable.
Someone "hacked" into a private computer system, meaning they had no right to be there.
These emails were then released, not "leaked", to the media with the sole intention of disparaging the scientist involved.
Based on your "disturbing information" comment I can only assume that you are buying into the line that these scientist have been "fudging data and lying to people to push their own agenda".
All this based on comments in a few of the 1,000 emails that have been published.
I don't know about you but; I am not a climate scientist, I work in manufacturing and know mulitple "tricks" that I have learned over the years to make a process "work". I work with statistics daily looking for data trends and answers as to why a process is working or not. In the course of this work I "manipulate" that data constantly, and in multiple ways, all in hopes of finding out what is going on.
Now tell me, does this make the work I do any less "truthful" or "legitamate"?
If someone hacked Bush's email and it came out that Bush was a reptilian from Saturn who was trying to keep humans in perpetual war, would you ignore that info because it came from hacked emails?
Are you trying to tell me that he ISN'T a reptilian from Saturn?
Sorry, couldn'st help myself.
To your question.
We need to discourage illegal acts, not encourage them.
So far the hackers have been treated as heroes not criminals.
Is this how you want all debates/contentious issues handled?
If some Climate scientist are fudging data, it will come out in the long run.
If Bush is from Saturn, that will come out in the long run, also.
I can recognize that people should NOT be hacking emails, AS WELL as discuss the disturbing things that came out in the emails.
As far as the emails: Even though I haven't read all 1,000 of them, and the associated stolen documents, I have not seen ANYTHING worth discussing. There are not any smoking guns in the emails. Well, other than the fact that some of these climate scientists are as petty as everyone else in the world.
I suppose if you find the fact that scientist can be petty is disturbing, I couldn't argue that point.
No one could seriously believe this was a hack. It was an inside job by a whistleblower (my assertion is as valid as a hacker)..
If they DID get hacked it demonstrates exactly how incompetent they are... that brings their findings into question...
Newton was Wrong
No one can ever trust science again!
We should start dumping all our computers, the power grid, air travel, cars, televisions, etc. None of that should work anyway, because it's all based on phony data, just made up by money-hungry scientists.
Dorky sure convinced me. That one class he took in college (he claims) trumps all that crappy science junk I learned in college.
I'm going to tear up my degree right now.
Hey Wallace Global Warming is happening! Regardless of how much the amount it is. Man made pollution is changing the planet. Now Chris lets focus on how to stop the pollution. Debating e-mails is no cure. It is only scientists debating the issue, but the majority of the science world can agree that we are polluting the Earth.
We can now figure out how humans can best adapt to the global climate change (that we can NOT control) so we have a better chance of survival.
this "man made" stuff has deflected the discussion in the wrong way.