"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus
Since the reported theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, dubbing the supposed scandal "Climategate." But these critics have largely rested their claims on outlandish distortions and misrepresentations of the contents of the stolen emails, greatly undermining their dubious smears.
CLAIM: Email reveals that Jones used "trick" to distort data and hide decline in temperatures
- BECK: How about Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? "I have just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline." Yes, he's talking about a trick that another scientist previously used in a peer-reviewed journal to apparently hide the decline in temperatures -- incredible. [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 11/23/09]
- In a November 23 editorial, Investor's Business Daily stated: "In one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University's Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona's Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research, Jones speaks of the 'trick' of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline."
REALITY: "Decline" refers to unreliable tree-ring data, not instrumental temperatures. In a November 26 article, The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported that Penn State scientist Michael Mann -- whose "trick" was referenced in Jones' email -- "said his trick, or 'trick of the trade,' for the Nature chart was to combine data from tree-ring measurements, which record world temperatures from 1,000 years ago until 1960, with actual temperature readings for 1961 through 1998" because "scientists have discovered that, for temperatures since 1960, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator." Jones has also stated that it is "well known" that tree ring data "does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960," and the CRU has said that "[t]he 'decline' in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data." In a November 20 post, RealClimate.org's staff, which is comprised of several working climate scientists, including Mann, similarly stated:
As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Several scientists have stated that the word "trick" is being misinterpreted. The (UK) Guardian reported in a November 20 article that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." RealClimate also explained that "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to ... 'a good way to deal with a problem', rather than something that is 'secret', and so there is nothing problematic in this at all."
CLAIM: Trenberth's "travesty" email exposes private doubts about whether global warming is occurring
- BECK: But first, let's start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What are these guys saying behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he's a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, quote: "The fact is, we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it. [Glenn Beck, 11/23/09]
- In a November 24 Human Events post, James Delingpole asserted that the Trenberth email reveals a scientist "[c]oncealing private doubts about whether the world is really heating up."
- Citing the Trenberth email, Robert Tracinski wrote in a November 24 commentary at RealClearPolitics.com that "[t]hese e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, 'where the heck is global warming?... 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.'"
REALITY: Trenberth's email referred to "inadequate" system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email, Trenberth cited "my own article on where the heck is global warming" and wrote: "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" [emphasis added].
Trenberth published similar comments in the journal article he cited. Wired's Threat Level blog reported that Trenberth "says bloggers are missing the point he's making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article -- An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) -- actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise." RealClimate.org similarly stated in a November 23 post that "[y]ou need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth's energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes." Indeed, the Trenberth article referred to what he called an "incomplete explanation" of short-term climate variations, and maintained that "global warming is unequivocally happening."
CLAIM: Scientists conspired against academic journal because it published dissenting research
- In a December 1 editorial, The Washington Times claimed that Mann "threatened journals that had the gall to publish academic research at odds with the global-warming theocracy. Upset that the journal Climate Research had published such a paper, Mr. Mann wrote: '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.'"
- In a November 27 editorial, The Wall Street Journal wrote:
Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "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!"
Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "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." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.
REALITY: Mann's email cited specific paper that Climate Research editors and publisher conceded should not have been published. In the March 11, 2003, email, Mann wrote that the paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas "couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility -- that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board." The New York Times reported on August 5, 2003, that the Soon-Baliunas paper "has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, that analysis was deeply flawed." The Times further noted that the "publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written" and that von Storch resigned, "saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies":
Advocates for cuts in emissions and scientists who hold the prevailing view on warming said the hearing backfired. It proved more convincingly, they said, that the skeptical scientists were a fringe element that had to rely increasingly on industry money and peripheral scientific journals to promote their work.
The hearing featured Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a co-author of a study, with Dr. Sallie Baliunas, also an astrophysicist at the center, that said the 20th-century warming trend was unremarkable compared with other climate shifts over the last 1,000 years.
But the Soon-Baliunas paper, published in the journal Climate Research this year, has been heavily criticized by many scientists, including several of the journal editors. The editors said last week that whether or not the conclusions were correct, the analysis was deeply flawed.
The publisher of the journal, Dr. Otto Kinne, and an editor who recently became editor in chief, Dr. Hans von Storch, both said that in retrospect the paper should not have been published as written. Dr. Kinne defended the journal and its process of peer review, but distanced himself from the paper.
"I have not stood behind the paper by Soon and Baliunas," he wrote in an e-mail message. "Indeed: the reviewers failed to detect methodological flaws."
Dr. von Storch, who was not involved in overseeing the paper, resigned last week, saying he disagreed with the peer-review policies.
The Senate hearing also focused new scrutiny on Dr. Soon and Dr. Baliunas's and ties to advocacy groups. The scientists also receive income as senior scientists for the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington group that has long fought limits on gas emissions. The study in Climate Research was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry.
Mann: "I support the publication of 'skeptical' papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit." In response to the controversy surrounding the emails, Mann said that his email "[w]as in response to a very specific incident regarding a paper by Soon and Baliunas published in the journal 'Climate Research.' " Mann further stated: "I support the publication of 'skeptical' papers that meet the basic standards of scientific quality and merit. I myself have published scientific work that has been considered by some as representing a skeptical point of view on matters relating to climate change."
CLAIM: Email reveals Mann tried to obscure Medieval Warm Period
- Discussing the reportedly stolen emails on ABC News' This Week, George Will claimed that in an email, Mann "said he wished he could delete, get rid of, the medieval warming period. That lasted 600 years." [ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 11/29/09]
- In his November 24 Human Events article, Delingpole claimed that the "emails reveal a variety of dubious practices, quite contrary to what might reasonably be expected of a world-renowned climate research institution lavishly funded by the UK government." One "practice" Delingpole cited included "[a]ttempting to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (ie the period from about 900 to about 1200 when global mean temperatures were considerably warmer than they are now): '......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....' "
REALITY: Mann said he wanted to identify when MWP began, not "delete, get rid of" it. Mann wrote in the June 4, 2003, email [emphasis added]:
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.
Moreover, according to the November 26 Morning Call article, Mann explained that his email regarding MWP "reflected his desire to identify exactly when the Medieval Warm Period began." From the article:
Mann also said his 2003 e-mail saying ''it would nice to 'contain' the putative 'MWP''' was not a call for scientists to deny the Earth warmed naturally 1,000 years ago. He said it reflected his desire to identify exactly when the Medieval Warm Period began.
CLAIM: Emails were obtained through legitimate means
- On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that the emails "may be from a whistleblower inside the organization who is just unhappy with what's going on," adding that "the bottom line is, the whole global warming -- manmade global warming movement is a fraud. It is a hoax. It's made-up lies." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/23/09]
- In his Wall Street Journal column, L. Gordon Crovitz claimed that the "emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name 'FOI,' were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming." [The Wall Street Journal, 11/30/09]
REALITY: CRU officials have stated that emails were obtained through "a criminal breach of our security systems." In its initial response to the reported theft, officials at the University of East Anglia stated: "Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web." In a statement about the controversy, CRU vice chancellor of research Trevor Davies stated: "We are committed to furthering this debate despite being faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal breach of our security systems and our concern to protect colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the publication of personal information." Davies further stated, "Although we were confident that our systems were appropriate, experience has shown that determined and skilled people, who are prepared to engage in criminal activity, can sometimes hack into apparently secure systems. Highly-protected government organisations around the world have also learned this to their cost."
CLAIM: Emails undermine global warming consensus
- In a November 24 editorial titled, "Hiding evidence of global cooling," The Washington Times claimed that the reportedly stolen CRU emails show that "these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory." Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked to the Times editorial on the Drudge Report using the headline: "Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers."
- Using the headline, "Global Warming's Waterloo?" the Fox Nation linked to a November 23 Gateway Pundit post asserting that "Senator James Inhofe [R-OK] will call for an investigation into" the emails.
- On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity stated: "This climate change hoax, now we find out that this institute, in fact, was hiding from the people of Great Britain and the world that, in fact, climate change is a hoax, something I've been saying for a long time." [Fox News' Hannity, 11/24/09]
- On his radio show, Limbaugh claimed that the "whole thing's made up" and that "it looks like substantial fraud -- a lot of evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the evidence on global warming." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/20/09]
REALITY: Distortions of illegally obtained documents from one group of scientists do not undermine overwhelming consensus. In a statement on the reported theft of the emails, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated that "no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment." From Pachauri's statement:
In summary, no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches. Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive review, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping I.P.C.C. assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.
The unfortunate incident that has taken place through illegal hacking of the private communications of individual scientists only highlights the importance of I.P.C.C. procedures and practices and the thoroughness by which the Panel carries out its assessment. This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.
NASA's Gavin Schmidt: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.
NYT: "Hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument." The New York Times' Andrew Revkin reported on November 20 that "[t]he evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists."
UCS: Our understanding of climate science is based "on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge." Peter Frumhoff, the director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an IPCC author stated, "We should keep in mind that our understanding of climate science is based not on private correspondence, but on the rigorous accumulation, testing and synthesis of knowledge often represented in the dry and factual prose of peer-reviewed literature. The scientific community is united in calling on U.S. policymakers to recognize that emissions of heat-trapping gases must be dramatically reduced if we are to avoid the worst consequences of human-induced climate change."
Yale Project on Climate Change director: "[T]here's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen." Reuters stated that Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change said, "It shows that the process of science is not always pristine ... But there's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen." The Reuters article further noted that "the researchers involved were only a handful out of thousands across the world that have contributed to a vast convergence of data that shows the world has warmed." The article also quoted Piers Forster, an environment professor at the University of Leeds stating, "Whilst some of the e-mails show scientists to be all too human, nothing I have read makes me doubt the veracity of the peer review process or the general warming trend in the global temperature recorded."
The program code however is different.
It is the actual program code, the modeling code that contains the most damaging evidence. I am not talking about the 'comments' in the code but rather the actual computer program source code itself.
Unlike comments and emails the computer code can only be interpreted in one way. Unlike the comments and the emails the computer code is whole unto it self and requires no external context.
So now everyone has the code.
However now CRU have somehow ‘lost’ the world’s raw climate data that they used in their modeling.
It may have been necessary for them to have lost the raw temperature data. If the raw temperature data was available then they might be asked to reproduce Exactly The Same Results, in front of skeptical witnesses, as they had used in their peer-reviewed publications that were distributed to the world. This might have been impossible without using some infected modeling code, which an investigating scientist might discover.
If the results can not be reproduced the paper that used the results should be withdrawn. Then every paper that cited that paper, and so on until the whole web of pseudo-science that can be traced back to the original fabrication has been purged from the libraries.
It is not scientific unless an independent body can reproduce the results.
For information on the possible code infection see:
Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
You simply don't understand how this process works. Until you do, you really should refrain from coming on to this site and trying to educate us!
No one would use the raw data without filtering it. No one should. The fact that you don't understand this is your failing, not ours.
But hate radio/Fox News says that the stolen emails prove that global warming is a hoax. Who are we to believe?
But throwing out/revising a small amount of data in a legit way is what scientists do all the time. It's standard behavior that has all kinds of good science behind it. And that's what happened here.
by the way, tree rings are indeed a bad proxy. when the climate deteriorated in 1315, the trees loved it, but it was too cold and wet for grain.
And then you can make the same reasonable adjustments to a small portion of the data, just like they did, to account for typos and urbanization. If you don't, your end results won't be valid.
Or you could just use their data that they did save that already has those corrections made.
It's your choice. If you think that their corrections are invalid, feel free to re-collect that data. If you think that they were dishonest, wouldn't you want to start fresh, rather than take ANYTHING they gave you?
You'll not find anything, since many other groups have duplicated their work and not found errors, but, if it floats your boat, go for it!
In a nutshell, in your own words, and in your opinion, what is the most damaging thing about the computer code?
I will say that INITIALLY the code looks suspect BUT without a very thorough analysis I'm not throwing stones...
It's people who don't know what they're talking about getting all upset over nothing.
It usually makes it obvious they used all their bullets.
And which "independent body" would that be, if it isn't NOAA, NASA, Woods Hole Institute, numerous universities and other scientific communities?
It's been done. But deniers don't want to accept it.
I guess the only "independent body" deniers would accept is anyone who spins it in their direction. Independent. Yeah, right.
one more thing, no outsider, skeptic has EVER had an opportunity to examine the data and now it's gone...
pathetic.
So, a tiny portion of all of the data that's been accumulated was discarded a quarter of a century ago. Only a tiny portion of what was discarded was adjusted for publication. And that tiny portion of a tiny portion is still available at the original sources. Nothing is really missing.
So, you see, there is plenty of data for you to examine. Now, if only you were capable of doing so compentently ...
Some (not all) data was erased only at the CRU.
So just ignore ALL THE OTHER INDEPENDENT, YET CORROBORATIVE DATA taken by ....
NASA
NOAA
The list of organizations at UCS
Woods Hole
(and this is just a short list)
You deniers are just focusing on CRU. You deny the fact that there's even a chance of independent data out there, because otherwise it will make your arguments null and void.
Just because you guys have absolutely no clue how science works, you can't assume your ignorance validates your claims. Ignorance maybe bliss, but it doesn't prove anything.
And where's the conspiracy? How does it work? Where is the motivation? Deniers are all "no, no, no" and "show me" and "prove to me", but none of you have never, ever, ever even tried to explain how this vast conspiracy is suppose to work. Nor have you all explained why just any scientist involved in studying climate change is involved in this conspiracy, yet all the other scientists are immune to this.
Yeah, I've seen your web sites. Nothing is ever explained why the worlds scientists have conspired to bring about this so-called fraud. But there is a lot of denier nay-saying.
God gave you all a brain, yet you waste it on childish notions of grand ill-defined conspiracies around every dark corner, like the boogie-man hiding under your bed.
Either grow up, or acknowledge that perhaps the science is right on this one. After all, the scientists are the ones with the degrees to prove they are at least some type of experts in their fields. It's easier for me to believe them, than to believe a nay-saying denier.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12457&tid=282&cid=13366
SCIENCE, UNLIKE RELIGION AND OTHER DOGMATIC INSTITUTIONS, NEVER CLAIMS TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. JUST THE BEST ANSWER TO DATE.
Randy
I know. The truth hurts.
I'll keep posting this stuff as long as you deniers refuse to explain how all these scientists can work together to pull off this vast conspiracy.
You all claim a conspiracy. So, just how does it work? Who's involved? What's the motivation? And why is this limited to just anyone associated with climatology?
Where does this conspiracy start? Where does it end?
Who knows, maybe ALL science is ONE VAST CONSPIRACY!!!
Perhaps your own Dr. uses "bogus data" when he/she prescribes medicine. Maybe you should consult a witch doctor?
The simplest explanation is that the consensus is right, and the data shows climate change is real and caused by humans.
The conspiracy model is just too complex to be taken seriously by any reasonable (emphasis on "reasonable") person.
I come not to pick a side, simply to present information. I cannot confirm or deny the information in this report:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
You've got it all proved, you've got the smoking gun. Why don't we have any quotes from you? You've got people here ready to believe you, because they believe the scientific method - in otherwords, they believe that if you observe it, it happened, and if you have the power to set thins up so that it happens the same way every time, then you must understand what's going on and your assumptions about how to set things up are right - at least to the degree of precision that your experiment allows.
The beauty, and what is nuts about calling climate deniers skeptics, is that all scientists are skeptics. If you read the actual debate in scientific journals in the late 70s through to the early 90s, there were *tons* of paper used to print all the skeptical views. But, and this part might confuse you, when they saw it for themselves, the skeptics accepted that worldwide warming is happening and that no current theory of natural variation accounts for the level of warming, and that one theory that could account for the level of warming was grounded in well-proven atmospheric physics governing absorption and directive re-radiation combined with hydrological and glaciological ideas about transferring atmospheric energy to, respectively, liquid and frozen water bodies around the world.
Having no natural explanation for the data, and having a well-founded explanation of the data that indicated that human activities would have to be involved for that theory to account for the data, all the *skeptics* that were involved in the conversation/investigation were largely convinced that something along those lines was happening, and investigation turned to attempting to finding out *how much* the air would warm, *how much* the permafrost would thaw, and *how much* the sea level would rise from thermal expansion and an altered set-point in the evaporation-precipitation-accumulation-return water cycle.
However, if there is a different, more parsimonious explanation for the data, we skeptics would love to hear it.
I've heard "conspiracy" & I've heard "fraud" and those are attempts to explain *media stories* and political actions. But I have heard nothing from the deniers that explains the data.
We have observed warming. the data exist. Have we observed it because the atmosphere is in fact warming, or because all the thermometers in the world were reset by the Great Pumpkin?
I get that you don't believe the scientists who have worked on this for 30 years.
What I don't get, what I haven't seen, is any attempt to explain the actual data - not the shape of a graph representing the data, but the data.
Please. If you found any e-mail that indicates that anyone has admitted typing in knowingly false data or programming a satellite to record temps 1 degree C above the actual temps or any other e-mail that can account for anything in the actual data...
...the skeptics are waiting to see it. Please tell me. I'll be supporting you if you can explain the data, what it is, how it got there, what it will show next. I'll support you to the point of fundraising for a lab for you to do more research. I've done fundraising before. I'll put my money where my mouth is. I'll even stipulate that I won't rest (more than any reasonable person with a very demanding job) until you get the salary equal to 3 times the median salary of a PhD climatologist (on a per hour basis, paid per hour you work in the lab, capped at 48/week - lots of climatologists are salaried with no overtime after all...) with benefits.
this is it. The skeptics are waiting. You are on. Instead of announcing, "the emails have proved my case," ...
...Make your case.
If I hear crickets, I'll be disappointed in you, mark, since you obviously have a lot of time available.
Directly after that story Rush talked about the climate change story. i found it interesting that Rush never mentioned the similarity in the cases. Both involved stolen information and both should have legal implications.
Think I should hold my breath waiting for him to recognize the connection?
Here are the facts about what you kindly brought up in your post didi. A seventy-five-year-old couple of democratic activists are Christmas shopping for their grandkids. They are scanning cell phone calls on their car radio. We all have scanners in our cars don't we? And they just happened to run across a conversation between Newt Gingrich, who at the time was speaker of the House, and John Boehner, one of his lieutenant leaders. They send the tape to Demoncrat McDermott who sends it to the NYT's who publishes it (McDermott has been fined a million). But of course the NYT's has not yet published the email hoax messages. The demoncrat old people were fined $5,000.00 for stealing the cell phone call.
Regarding the information in the emails, it was not actually stolen. The information was requested over three years ago under the Freedom of Information Act but the GW fraudsters kept refusing to release the data.
Even you leftists should be able to see the difference between these two cases.
There are numerous FOIA requests.
No one gets to steal documents they've requested via FOIA requests and then say that they were entitled to them.
I think OJ Simpson tried that defense recently, and he got sent to jail for many years because he stole stuff!
The emails weren't provided voluntarily. They were stolen. It doesn't matter that there may have been an FOIA request for them - that doesn't excuse the hacking! Wow.
The New York Times did not steal the cell phone conversation. The couple that did steal the conversation was punished.
If you believe that the NYT should be punished for publishing the stolen conversation, then do you also believe that the various media outlets who have published the content of these stolen emails should also be punished for doing so?
by Col. Harlan Sanders (December 01, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
6 It looks like the NY Times and the people who provided the tape were punished, and the people who hacked the GW emails were not. That's one difference, unless you have something to back up your statement that the GW emails were provided voluntarily. I hadn't heard that.
--------------------------------------------------
by Ruby (December 01, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
5 NYT was not punished. And it's too early to determine if the hacker will be punished.
The New York Times did not steal the cell phone conversation. The couple that did steal the conversation was punished.
If you believe that the NYT should be punished for publishing the stolen conversation, then do you also believe that the various media outlets who have published the content of these stolen emails should also be punished for doing so?
All caught up there, retiredin SF ?
And, of course, we find why these e-mails were not released. Just as the kooky-cons have done with health care reform bills, they take these e-mails and twist them into all sorts of things they don't say... which takes lengthy explanations to refute. You can't talk about what these e-mails say in a Glenn Beck soundbite.
Guess the kooky-cons have to cling to something. Since the economy is recovering, and we will finally have long overdue health care reform... they have to move on to distort another topic.
TiredinSF, read this very slowly and carefully; there is no email fraud. You're being played for a chump by your righty puppeteers.
Regardless of the violations involved in the phone call case (for which the people responsible were punished), there is absolutely no irony involved in a major newspaper not publishing a non-story made up entirely of right wing propaganda.
You seem to be ignoring a lot of very sensible advice and information you're getting at this site. Are you mentally challenged, or just pretending to be this thick to see if others will believe you're for real?
Yeah, real sensitive...if your one of the creeps who helped engineer that catastrophe.
Randy
Oh, and fool that he is, he thinks that 2 wrongs make a right. He thinks that an error by the NY Times in publishing intercepted cell phone conversations makes it okay to publish stolen emails.
It doesn't. A prior bad act doesn't make a new bad act okay.
Additionally, since the initial incident, federal court rulings have made it look more dangerous to publish illegally-gathered information.
But we see this same argument from rightwingers over and over again. I need a tool on my computer that would allow me to simply type a couple of letters and have an auto-generated response get printed to cover many of these repeat issues.
But what he's also doing is desperately trying to change the subject to the NY Times, instead of what the subject is - that the conservative media is distorting the stolen emails. He's a typical troll, trying to derail the topic.
Let's see how many times the deniers will get suckered by their same sources. They're like loyal battered wives, these far right cult members.
" Don't you see the irony of the NYT's publishing a private cell phone conversation versus not publishing any of the email fraud? This is a great example of why most folks think the MSM leans to the left. And why so many print media publications are losing so many readers / money. We are very tired of the MSM thinking they need to vet what we "need" to know. "
CS2: First, let me prove you are repeating a lie. Here is a story from the New York Times about the E-mails from the 20th, the same day as all the other E-mail stories broke. You can see that they link to a site with every stolen E-mail right in the first paragraph.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
I heard Limbaugh tell the lie about the New York Times. This is an example of how right wing media lies and keeps its fans ignorant by telling them they can't trust mainstream media that is actually telling the truth. So the right wing media fans never get to hear both sides to realize they've been lied to. But if you look at the link you can see it for yourself. Are you able to believe it?
The right wing is lying about the E-mail scandal itself too.
Run a search of the Times. They've published a number of articles on this controversy and their work is well balanced, unlike Limbaugh who only tells one side - the false one.
I do think that the reality of what has happened, that the emails have been exposed, is sort of reality trumping other considerations. Once they have been exposed, I think it is up to the authors of the emails to defend the statements made in these emails, which they are now doing.
In regard to email security, in general, every corporation I have worked for makes it clear that your emails are being archived and preserved in the event that they are needed for investigations, etc..
Attempts are going to be made, I think, to get the emails through the legal process of discovery in investigations.
But by all means, if laws were broken, charges should be made.
What stuns me is that these people, along with the rest of the denialosphere, completely ignore the word real in the pilfered Jones quote. How can you possibly hide a real decline using real temperatures?
I'm going to really enjoy watching them become peaceniks..now that Obama has presented a new strategy in Afghanistan..
1 - CLAIM: Email reveals that Jones used "trick" to distort data and hide decline in temperatures.
Jones just hid the decline, he did not explicitly say that the data after 1960 was omitted. And why should treerings have become less reliable? It would be more reasonable to omit all treerings from the study – and explicitly publicize all proxies with an explanation why they were included or not.
2 - CLAIM: Trenberth's "travesty" email exposes private doubts about whether global warming is occurring
The debate here is not long term trend, but short term balance of energy. Very large amounts of energy have gone missing. When Trenberth discuss the reason for this, in fact, he stops just short of saying: “or is the hypothesis of Global Warming simply erroneous?”
3 - CLAIM: Scientists conspired against academic journal because it published dissenting research
You turn the argument upside down. The alarmists have hijacked nearly all the scientific magazines that are imperative for the publication of research. Mann found a hole in the Hockey Teams defense against skeptics – Climatic Research. You will soon see that the MWP comes back again, it has been omitted thanks to Mann for some time.
4 - Email reveals Mann tried to obscure Medieval Warm Period
He said: “ it would be nice to try to contain the putative MWP”. Well, that is subject to interpretation. Arguably, one can also do injustice in the case of Mann. Do you also find the word “putative” well chosen and supporting your interpretation?
5 - Emails were obtained through legitimate means
The mails, all related to climate research, were written by employees on paid time recorded on the employer’s server and directed to fellow researchers. These mails are not primarily directed to friends, even if agreeably that is easy to assume. Such mails are subjects to FOIA. If the exposure was done by hackers or internals, idealists or rascals is left to be seen and is another question.
6 Emails undermine global warming consensus
They certainly do. They clearly expose a group of men that are not preoccupied with free research in pursuit of the truth.
After all, when younger researchers see that their colleagues, who want to publish work that can be “used” by skeptics, cannot find publications open to them, or they even get fired, then they understand the risks. And when they see who’s getting the big funds for research, you understand that integrity does not pay off. They will select their subject, their methods, their data and the way they present their work accordingly.
The integrity of the researchers in an institution, and even across institutions, is extremely dependant of the demonstrated integrity of the leadership. They are the role model for young researchers. Therefore, the implicated institutions are compromised and the assumed consensus is gone.
2. The "travesty" email exposes no such thing. Here is a set of emails containing Trenberth's "travesty" comment and the ensuing discussion, including disagreements with his assessment and various ways to examine the data. He doesn't come anywhere close to "the hypothesis of Global Warming simply erroneous," no matter how much you'd like that to be true.
3. The claim you describe is false on its face. The journal Climate Research published a paper as peer-reviewed that was fatally flawed in many ways. The journal admitted as much. Passionate climatologists like Jones and Mann were determined to hold the publication and its editorial staff accountable for their sloppiness. The simple fact is that the data overwhelmingly supports the theory of ACC. The reason denialists fail to pass peer-review is that their product isn't good enough. They are much like creationists in this regard, with the same whine.
4. No, the emails don't show Mann tried to obscure the MWP. All of the data and analysis was available for review. He showed that the MWP was largely a European phenomenon and not global as had previously been presumed. The emails don't show that he manipulated data, as the Penn State investigation will likely show.
5. The emails were not turned over as the result of a FOI request, regardless of the fact one had been submitted. They were obtained through hacking. These facts are not in dispute by any authorities.
6. The emails do not undermine ACC at all when read in full and in context. The only way they can be said to do so is by misrepresenting them, cherry-picking and pulling out of context. The scientific community will be looking at them extremely closely and will find what I did. These are a group of dedicated scientists, passionate about their work and trying very hard to GET IT RIGHT.
2 “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… Our observing system is inadequate”. Yes - it is the energy balance that is discussed, not the long trend.
3 There are several accounts of people being harassed, fired etc. If you think that this is how differences should be solved, then we certainly disagree.
4 If you read what i write I am pointing out that this is a matter of interpretation.
5 There are so many cases of stolen papers that have been very important - the Pentagon papers, the papers from the tobacco industries and so on. If it is a hacker or an insider is irrelevant. If you think that information like this cannot be used, it's shows clearly that you have a hidden agenda.
6 There are long series of emails - this is not out of context. On the contrary, other sources of information confirm the impression. You say: "These are a group of dedicated scientists, passionate about their work and trying very hard to GET IT RIGHT". Yes - and right is for The Hockey Team an acceptance of the AGW hypothesis.
2. Nothing you stated contradicts what I said and what is clearly shown when you look at the rest of the email exchanges. Trenberth didn't come anywhere close to saying ACC was erroneous. You're simply wrong about that.
3. I don't believe that differences should be resolved as you described. However, you haven't shown that they have been. You're making the assertion without support.
4. Perhaps there's some openness to interpretation of Mann's words, but you need to bend logic pretty far to portray it as damaging in any way to the theory of ACC.
5. You were arguing in your first post that because, in your opinion, the data might have been eligible for access under FOI requests that we don't know that it was obtained illegally. I pointed out that it definitely was not obtained through an FOI request or any other legitimate means. It was obtained by hacking. Now you're trying to move the goalposts and claim that the illegal downloading was justified. I'll take that as an admission that you were wrong initially.
6. Nothing but spin. There is nothing in those emails that point to efforts to deceive, fudge, obfuscate, intimidate or predetermine. It's just not there. "Right" means as accurate as possible, and they seem to be achieving it.
2. The "travesty" Jones refers to is having inadequate instrumentation to track the movement of heat energy within the environment. If you'd just bother to read the article Jones refers to in the email, this is crystal clear.
3. The scientists considered not writing for and not citing a publication because it was publishing "crappy" papers, not because it was publishing skeptical papers. There is a huge difference. If, as they believed, its peer review process had gone off the rails, and it was publishing poorly researched, erroneous papers, this is the correct response: Don't use it.
4. It's clear to anyone who's paying attention that the MWP was a regional phenomenon that the "skeptics" are using in a global context. That's the "containment" he's talking about: contain its significance to what it really is. Regional.
5. The FOI request had not been granted, which shatters your claim that they were obtained through "legitimate means". The implicit assumption is that it's OK to steal anything once you have asked for it. Can I have your car?
6. Considering that you and many others have completely misconstrued the emails you talk about in items 1 through 4, your statement that the emails "undermine global warming consensus" is pretty hard to defend.
There's a great deal of personal incredulity in this "response". Just because you cannot understand something or don't understand how the words trick and decline are used doesn't invalidate all climate change studies ever performed. It makes your contribution to the discussion moot.
Randy
The bastardisation of the peer review process, the cherry-picking of data by the Royal Society and the unavailability of data are damning no matter how you slice it.
The "massaging" of data does science a great disservice and is a total disgrace. The IPCC, CRU, and rabid left wing cult like following are totally to blame for this mess.
How much tax payer money was wasted on this?
Simply accepting flawed science does not prove that it is correct....
That's easy. It's based on wishful thinking.
I disagree, aBeck. I like knowing what the nutjobs think. I encourage the trolls to post their opinions on every right wing scam they get suckered into. I know they're just a handful of brainwashed extremists, but it's good to have these things documented and archived.
Someday,when the GW denial cultists have all died off, or are too exhausted to fight reality any more, there will be another, new issue muddied up by right wing propaganda. When somebody suggests that the BS is nothing to worry about, that nobody will possibly believe it, you can point to these comments as proof that some people can be talked into anything.
This is exactly the kind of inquiry that the media, especially Fox, should engage in before declaring a Climategate scandal.
Instead conservative media will persist in using any means available to support their preconceived notions, and scientific method be damned.
"Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something -- a short cut can be a trick." RealClimate also explained that "the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to ... 'a good way to deal with a problem', rather than something that is 'secret', and so there is nothing problematic in this at all."
As Clinton said about his lies about having sex with Monica while testifying under oath: "Depends on what the definition of 'is', 'is'."
You leftists are truly a funny bunch with your attempts to cover up the biggest scientific hoax since the flat earthers
Is the Pentagon part of the Al Gore cult?
Source please? And I agree climate change is happening. I've said this before. The hoax is global warming has been exagerated and the cause is man-made.
Pentagon will include a climate section in the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in February...
This is not a new angle. In 2007, 11 retired senior generals issued a 63-page report that found that global warming "presents significant national security challenges to the United States"
Pentagon adds climate change to national security debate
Need More? Google Pentagon Climate Change.
OK. Let's see. The only difference between the Earth now and thousands of years ago is that there are 6 billion humans now residing on our planet.
Nope. Couldn't be man made.
How do you reconcile the fact that for the first time in recorded/known history you can sail a ship through the Arctic Circle?
You morons are acting as though this is some earth-shattering revelation. Oh, yeah, the problem with tree-ring data was such a deep, dark secret that it was written up in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature back in 1998. Yeah, big conspiracy there.
It is assumed that, by studying present tree-ring patterns in relation to climate, older tree-ring chronologies may be used to indicate climatic conditions experienced before detailed climate and weather records were kept. But Mann himself indicated that this was now an unreliable method for showing temperature change. So unreliable, that in fact, estimates of correlation after 1961 weren't fitting into the models that supported the idea of global warming. So what is one to do? change only part of the model when more accurate methods of temperature monitoring that proves global warming is related to CO2!! Wha-la, tree ring studies somehow became totally different between December 31, 1960 and the next day January 1, 1961! If da ring don't fit, you must just quit!
And remember, the data Mann was using for his study was 'dumped' the CRU and is now inconveniently unavailable for scientific review. Hmmmmm, imagine that.
Speaking truth to/about progressives with a shout out to the Sahali's, looking forward to see you at the next shin-dig. :>
The excerpt you quoted doesn't do anything to support your point, except to those who completely misunderstand what the scientists are doing.
And plagiarizing an encyclopedia entry in place of an actual thought isn't going to fool anybody except your fellow glassy-eyed primitive wingnuts.
As far as the dumping of the raw data, isn't it a convenient truth that all of a sudden it was disposed of? How can we verify what the tree rings mean?
Speaking truth to/about progressives and with a shout out to our dear kernal, greetings and salutations!
It doesn't matter that it was disposed of. The weather monitoring stations still have the data, if someone wants it.
It's not like a science experiment where the person doing the scientific experiment disposed of his work. All that existed was data that was provided by those stations that measure the weather, and the info could be gathered again by those same weather stations!
This is not rocket science, and the fact that it baffles you tells us all we need to know about how much weight to give your argument!
Do you just accept everything you hear from your sources? If you do, then you're just as bad as your "right-wingnuts".
I don't have the answer, but that looks like a pretty strong argument as to the "scientists" manipulating data.......
I am amused by how you tried to distract from the fact that I blew away the dishonest use of the word "trick" by Jones. The first time I read that email it was obvious to me that he was referring to a method of dealing with a problem. It takes a stretch to believe it was a statement of an intent to deceive. But then, my agenda is more honest than yours is.
Wow, I sure worded that poorly. Let me say that better.
I am amused at your attempt to distract from the fact that I blew away the dishonest way retiredinsf tried to misrepresent Jones' use of the word "trick."
A little awkward, but the meaning comes across better.
I'm not sure if they think copy & pasting something that they don't even understand is intended to fool other people into thinking they have a clue, or if it just makes them feel involved.
I'm not sure if they think copy & pasting something that they don't even understand is intended to fool other people into thinking they have a clue, or if it just makes them feel involved."
Didn't I tell ya leftists are condescending elitist high-browed snobs?
Remember, if you don't lie, you don't have to remember a thing you say.
The amazing part is that none of them seem to think there's anything wrong with it. I don't recall any apologies or remorse, or even admission that they had done it at all.
And it's rarely plagiarizing facts, it's almost always opinion that is used (they think) to refute facts.
It's a pretty interesting look into the right wing mind. I think they're so conditioned to regurgitating anything that agrees with their ideology that they consider "borrowed" opinions to have the same weight as logic.
Apparently, plagiarism is what the Real Americans do. I think it comes from the training at the Limbaugh Institute; if you don't have anything to say, just make a lot of words come out of your mouth. If you can't think of any words that make sense, just repeat somebody elses and hope nobody notices that you're stealing and not saying anything.
To the average American, where news sources have to write to about a 7th-grade level, it's no wonder that wingnuts Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity appeal to this low (while not "lowest") common denominator. Is there no better illustration that the right-wing's shortchanging of our public education system continues to shortchange the nation's learning?
Hans von Storch:
I guess "gatekeeping" is now a standard point of order in the peer review process?
Upon publication of that article, which very clearly should have failed a proper peer-review process, Mann, Jones and others reasonably pointed out the failures of Storch and Climate Research and how it damaged their credibility. The end result of the mess was that Storch ended up having to tender his resignation. Clearly, he blames Mann, Jones and the many other scientists whose pursuit of quality science brought about his downfall. He calls it "gatekeeping" while others might term it as taking responsibility for one's errors.
Here's an article that summarizes the episode, with a very apt comparison of denialists to evolutionary IDiots.
He errored, as editor, in the process of reviewing a submission. He suffered the appropriate sanctions for that behavior, yet he wants to pretend that those who were involved in enforcing those sanctions and providing the evidence that convicted him made him into a victim.
They didn't. He's not a victim.
Of course, the peer-review process IS gatekeeping!
It isn't perfect, but it's designed to weed out the wackos.
So, if your assertions are to be taken seriously, we must have a coordinated effort among many reviewers for many journals to coordinate their efforts to exclude the papers submitted by those poor deniers.
Hmmm....
And just how is this all coordinated among all those scientists? And what is their motivation?
Perhaps the simpler explanation is that there is no conspiracy among vast numbers of scientists to exclude those poor deniers in the peer review process?
Nah. Deniers prefer the more complicated, convoluted, ill-defined conspiracy model. It works better for them.
AGW common sensors - 1
Warmers - 0
Your serve sir.
And....? That proves what.....? Where's the conspiracy...? How does it work.....?
Repeating....
Deniers prefer the more complicated, convoluted, ill-defined conspiracy model. It works better for them.
1) Laugh hysterically and/or inform us that you spit out some liquid when reading the above post. This clearly proves that the information is not to be trusted.
2) If all else fails, reference that dumb thing Bill Clinton said. Because the fact that Bill Clinton said something dumb is always totally relevant and always proves a super-important point.
Thanks for the quick demonstration of con logic, retiredinsf!
You tell me who has more substance.
.
You have less substance than virtually any other rightwing poster on this site. That's was an easy challenge. Make it harder next time please.
And if that interpretation isn't silly, please explain why so many right wing posters have trouble drinking liquids without spilling them all over the place !!
- a clever or ingenious device or expedient; adroit technique: the tricks of the trade <---You must be familiar with this phrase? I mean...right?
- the art or knack of doing something skillfully: You seem to have mastered the trick of making others laugh.
- a clever or dexterous feat intended to entertain, amuse, etc.: He taught his dog some amazing tricks.
I mean honestly...do you really think that the word "trick" only has one definition? I know you're smarter than that.
In your original post, you acted like suggesting that "trick" could have another definition besides "deception" was hilariously absurd.
So then I posted for you some of the other definitions of the word.
Now tell me...are you now acknowledging the fact that "trick" has other definitions besides "deception"...such as its meaning in the phrase "tricks of the trade"?
Did I not demonstrate how it was nonsensical for you to react as if it was OMG SO HYSTERICALLY FUNNY AND STUPID that anyone could suggest that "trick" has another definition?
I think some peoples brains are just not wired like normal folks.
Ugh. I get so frustrated!
You're getting warmer, warmer I say.
These people have already been hypnotized. I don't really have any interest in trying to de-hypnotize them, I'm just amused at how desperately they'll latch onto anything that they can be convinced discredits climate change science.
I'm not sure if it's more political, or a general fear of change on their part, but I find the GW deniers very interesting.
That's not our failure.
There are lots of things you don't understand. So, please, don't take any antibiotics ever again, since you don't understand how they work. And don't take any other medicines, since you don't understand how double blind tests are done. And don't ever let any doctor ever perform any life-saving surgery, since you don't know how to read X-rays or interpret blood tests or how they monitor your respiration and heart rate when administering anesthesia.
Do you understand now how foolish it is to assert that because YOU don't understand something, no one should believe that the people who DO understand the issue have fully explained that it makes sense?
Considering that the tree ring data diverges from the known real temperatures after 1960, is it your suggestion that they be used anyway? Instead of the real temperatures from instruments? When the rings show a decline in temperatures that we know did not occur, we should still use them? How does that make any sense?
CLASSIC! LOL
1. a crafty or underhanded device, maneuver, stratagem, or the like, intended to deceive or cheat; artifice; ruse; wile.
2. an optical illusion: It must have been some visual trick caused by the flickering candlelight.
3. a roguish or mischievous act; practical joke; prank: She likes to play tricks on her friends.
4. a mean, foolish, or childish action.
And we are to accept the left's spin of the use of the fifth definition of trick? You people are a desperate bunch with all your deception efforts.
As I've said before, thank goodness there aren't many of you left-wing fringers out there amongst us normal people.
BTW: Give me the fifth definition of 10 other words Ruby or DellDolly - without using a dictionary.
I posted the other definitions of the word "trick" in response to your reaction that it was soooo incredibly outlandish for anyone to ever suggest that perhaps there was more than one definition.
So I mean, obviously, when someone uses the phrase "tricks of the trade" or "I learned a neat trick", they're clearly referring to deceiving someone. I mean, right? Because that's the only applicable definition of the word since, evidently, any definition listed beyond #4 in the dictionary.com entry just...what? doesn't exist? is irrelevant? can never be reasonably used?
How about you check every word you use in a sentence to make sure the meaning you're trying to convey is contained within the first 4 definitions on the dictionary.com entry?
The code is far more damning than the emails.
The actual hacked climate model code explained by a software developer:
http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/
The whole thing is a gigantic fraud.
In your opinion, what feature of the code is the most damning?
The very existence of such a divergence calls the entire validity of the proxy data into question.
The second most damning thing is the forced upward trends that massage the proxy data to flatten declines.
Total fraud.
I don't know of any code that doesn't have bugs.
Carefully read the EULA next time you install software.
But your focus on the code is irrelevant in the big picture.
ALL models must be independently verified. Independent? What's that?
Independent verification can be done via cross-referencing other models. But in the end, it must be verified via real-world measurements.
And, the measurements continue to agree with the models.
CO2 concentrations and global temperatures are increasing - measured and modeled.
The narrow focus on CRU is a deflection. There's a lot of independent data out there. But I guess you'd just say that was all made up too.
And so goes the vast conspiracy model held so tightly by the deniers.
http://stratus.astr.ucl.ac.be/textbook/chapter3_node22.xml
http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./cp_oa/components.html
http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./cp_cf/components.html
One of my concerns about the global warming debate is the idea that scientific consensus is a proof of the truth of something.
The continued use of the "consensus defense" by global warming advocates.
Do we forget that the earth is flat was once the scientific consensus, and that the sun revolved around the earth was the consensus when Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church.
There are critics of global warming that are not crackpots. Some 200 Nobel Prize winners are in doubt, for example. Some question global warming is even happening, others say it may be happening but it is not caused by man.
I would gain much more respect for global warming advocates if they would at least agree that the debate is not over.
The "debate" is only over in certain areas, where some facts are already known. True, there is a lot to learn and study with regard to climate change, but it doesn't help the science at all to be distracted by corporate medias lame tricks (misinterpreting these emails, for example).
Your flat earth analogy is interesting, as I've heard a lot of subtle religious undertones from GW deniers. The idea that man can't spin this planet off of the track that God put it on, that our puny actions can't possibly interfere with The Grand Plan, these are the feelings-based arguments against climate change science that I hear mostly from conservative religious types.
You've noticed a pretty good historical analogy, I just think you may have it backward if you're comparing the round-earthers to GW deniers.
"Do we forget that the earth is flat was once the scientific consensus"
Wrong!
The consensus of the learned folks of their time (eventually called "scientists") was that the earth was round. It was obvious to anyone who knew something about the positions of constellations, and how ships disappear over the horizon, that the earth was round. This knowledge goes back over 2500 years. Only ignorant dufuses of the time (the "popular opinion") would think the earth was flat. Just like the ignorant dufuses today, who claim the earth is not warming due to human activity.
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34013042/Flat-Earth-The-History-of-an-Infamous-Idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
And the quip about Galileo only reinforces our opinions about those who are threatened by enlightenment from the evidence - the "deniers".
Conclusions are supported by the data. It's not data supported by conclusions, as the deniers like to practice.
Quote from: http://chnm.gmu.edu/history/faculty/kelly/wciv/science/galileo.htm
"through a telescope, Galileo realized that the ancient theories of Ptolemy (which placed the Earth at the center of the universe) were incompatible with his observations. Through these observations he was able to confirm many of the theories of Nicholas Copernicus who had made similar arguments, but lacked observed data."
Copernicus had the theory based primarily on induction. Galileo's contribution was turning a telescope to the heavens and confirming Copernicus' theory.
Independent evidence is the only way to confirm a hypothesis or theory. And there's gobs of independent data to support human-caused climate change.
The debate about human contributions to climate change is over. It's been proven to an extremely high degree of confidence. That's why there's overwhelming consensus.
The data is out there. And, it's not just located at CRU.
The "Reality" is nothing more than a defense-lawyer's version of what happened- including the "explanations" of the alleged offenders.
Where is the cross-examination? Not there!
Who are these "consensus" makers? The very ones accused of manipulating the data
Where are the intereviews of the "deniers"? Not done or published for fear of real scientific inquiry.
The "evidence" used is lacking substance- the data has still not been reviewed (or for that matter even disclosed) by independent scientists in a transparent manner.
All of the above is manufactured drivel to defend the GW movement and limit true debate (quoting another unsubstantiated article to support your own)!
Science is not about reaching consensus- it is all about dis-proving hypotheses/theory!
Science is not about disproving hypothesis/theory. It happens along the way. Large arguments occur and historiclly one side of the argument dies shortly after its last advocate dies. There are many examples of this in Geology and Astronomy.
What a bizarre thing to say. That would mean that if your theory is correct you could never support it with science.
The theory has been "cross-examined" and challenged at every stage and in every detail for decades.
The consensus was achieved by providing quality data and analysis that could satisfy thousands of professional climatologists around the world. If you think they're all involved in a conspiracy your paranoia is too far gone for there to be hope for you.
The denialists have been trying to pass the peer-review process but their science hasn't met the standard. When they did find a sympathetic editor for a smaller, less reputable journal that journal had backtrack and admit that the paper didn't meet peer-review standards.
Not only has the evidence been reviewed over and over by independent scientists, it's been verified as consistent and reliable by different scientific organizations operating independently, exactly the way science should work.
You're about as wrong as you could possibly be.
reporting from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
When documents subject to pending freedom of information requests are being criminally destroyed, it would a crime not to "rescue" them if the opportunity presented itself.
Whoever "rescued" the email should receive protection under whistle blower status.