The End for the Global Warming Hoaxsters?

[trigger]

"Have you seen the movie 'Not Evil, Just Wrong'?" No, is Scarlett Johannson in it? :-)

The political polluting of the scientific process/data is something that all good citizens and solid researchers have to guard against, and it is natural outcome of the way in which research grants/universities are rewarded with money (especially public money) in Western culture. The ultimate blame lies with an academic/scientific community too eager to rush to judgment, which has also proven all too willing to suppress contrary research/opinions/arguments and does not always objectively vent research findings. It is undoubted that this process is seriously complicated for them by a 24/7 news cycle more interested in ratings and sensation than facts and left-wing politicians who want 'an issue'.

The problem with the current climate change debate is it has taken on all of the fervor of a religious crusade, especially in the media. If someone disagrees with the dogma, people scream 'flat earther' or 'right wing' in an attempt to sling mud at the argument being made (case in point in this thread) without even considering the validity of the argument.

Personally, I remember the hysteria some in the academic community tried to promote in the 70s we would soon expend all of the available fossil fuels on the planet. According to these 'researchers' we should have been out of oil and other fossil fuels in 20 or 30 years (ie, by now). How's that working?

[trigger]

"Why do you care how much $$ Gore has made on a book?"

I only care in the sense that when he was in a position of political power, he abandoned his cherished principles in order to serve his (and his boss') needs for reelection by lowering MPG standards to sate the auto industry and unions. It demonstrates: 1) he is a politician, so go figure, he's a hypocrite; and, 2) the hands of the priests in the climate change religion are not clean.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, metaphorically-speaking.

[Sigma]

But there are people with clear and obvious interests that would like for science to be untrue, because new information challenges their fundamental beliefs.

I agree, but you made a very wide generalization that any skeptic of YOUR beliefs is a religious right-winger.  Not true.  So let's just look at the facts and stick to the subject. 

[trigger]

"I agree, but you made a very wide generalization that any skeptic of YOUR beliefs is a religious right-winger.  Not true.  So let's just look at the facts and stick to the subject."

Well said.

[BridgeTroll]

But there are people with clear and obvious interests that would like for science to be untrue, because new information challenges their fundamental beliefs.

This statement is true for BOTH sides of the debate and part of the evidence is in the hacked emails.  The theory of global warming should be challenged as ALL theories are challenged and updated.  Theories evolve and it seems one side has concluded that the discussion is over and their conclusions are irrefutable.  They seem to lack the open mindedness in the same manner as they accuse the other side.  If so... this is a political debate and NOT a scientific one.

[Sigma]

Seems like there are thousands of these emails, so this is far from being over.  It's just beginning.  My initial thoughts were that its just a few complicit scientists scheming for a continual stream of grants.  Should be interesting to watch. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.

This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.

[ChriswUfGator]

The Washington Times is literally a dumba$$ supermarket tabloid published by a psycho cult leader. No exaggeration.

You'd get more accurate 'news' from the National Enquirer. I can't believe anybody actually quoted an article from that silly rag as evidence of anything. I'd be inclined to believe the polar opposite of whatever information came from that source.

[JMac]

This isn't just some kids school project.  Much of this research is the basis for the so-called consensu on Man-Made Global warming.  These researchers fudged and cherry-picked data to achieve the results they wanted.

[Sigma]

So is the WSJ also published by a psycho cult leader?   Just wondering.

[Sigma]

Very well.  BTW, why isn't MSNBC all over this?

Let's continue the discussion as more info comes about.  From what I've seen today, there several hundred, maybe thousands of these emails.  Reading through them, I agree with you, they are mostly boring.  But the devil is in the details - and those details appear to be very damaging to those involved.

[JMac]

lol.  is that from your years of research in the field jmac?

There isnt any factual basis for your statement or conclusion.

There isnt and one center for climatology, btw.  And choosing student emails to hack and steal isnt a good measure.

Imagine if someone tried to 'debunk' modern medicine by hacking the student emails at UF premed?

Phil Jones is not just a student doing a term paper.  He is the director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and was one of the lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assesment.

[JMac]

Here's one that looks suspicious:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

[Sigma]

Alleged CRU emails: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

[jandar]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
Read this article here.

A snippet:

we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines
(...)

In blunt terms, they are limiting the data to 1400, not 440 (even though their data goes to there).
So what was going on between 440 and 1400?
The Medieval Warm Period happened during those times. It lasted from about 800-1300AD.

Also Stephen, there are tons of emails where they stated that they would rather delete the datasets than to let certain others gain access to the data, even under the FOIA.

Read also:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/denying-email-deletion/

On Dec 3, 2008 in the emails, Phil Jones states:

About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little â€" if anything at all.

Then when speaking to the Guardian news, he states on Nov 24th, 2009

We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

[NotNow]

It seems obvious that they are concealing information, or conspiring to do so.  While this does not prove or disprove the theory, why the head in the sand routine?  What is up with the name calling?  SOSDD.  (A scientific term that I picked up from my training and experience in the subject.)