Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations
Discussion
Much as the debate between the various sides in the climate arena is intellectually interesting (and frustrating at times), I have no confidence that any proof of this latest salvo as true or as a hoax will make any material difference to our lives.
Our government is committed to maximising their tax take, currently through a "green" agenda. We all know that the politicians will use or ignore science as it fits their taxation (or other) plans. The potential discrediting of the "true believers" position would cause the government to drop climate change and pick a new cause, a new fear, a new stick with which to (attempt to) subjugate the population. A few heads might roll for spinning purposes but remarkably shortly after such a discrediting we'd have moved onto a new subject.
Those in power have never been "true believers" anyway - how much of the "green" tax take is actually being put to use preparing for the "true believers" predictions? None as far as I can tell. How are the government encouraging us to actually change our behaviour (rather than just paying more for the our current behaviour)? Not at all.
The science is a mere sideshow to the politicians, there to be used if it fits, ignored if it doesn't.
Our government is committed to maximising their tax take, currently through a "green" agenda. We all know that the politicians will use or ignore science as it fits their taxation (or other) plans. The potential discrediting of the "true believers" position would cause the government to drop climate change and pick a new cause, a new fear, a new stick with which to (attempt to) subjugate the population. A few heads might roll for spinning purposes but remarkably shortly after such a discrediting we'd have moved onto a new subject.
Those in power have never been "true believers" anyway - how much of the "green" tax take is actually being put to use preparing for the "true believers" predictions? None as far as I can tell. How are the government encouraging us to actually change our behaviour (rather than just paying more for the our current behaviour)? Not at all.
The science is a mere sideshow to the politicians, there to be used if it fits, ignored if it doesn't.
From here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-new...
"The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
“Have you alerted police”
“Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”
Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.
“Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-new...
"The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.
In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
“Have you alerted police”
“Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken.”
Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.
“Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn’t do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago.”"
FunkyGibbon said:
ludo said:
The implications of the emails is that the scientists are deliberately fraudulent in the performing the science, which as I have said isn't a game that is likely to pay off for them if they know what they are saying to be untrue.
That's what I meant re: pay masters and flexibility. A lot of people have a lot of money tied up in this, so quite easy to believe that some decisions could be driven by financial agendas rather than science.But we'll have to wait and see, it all could be b
ks.grumbledoak said:
ludo said:
...which as I have said isn't a game that is likely to pay off for them if they know what they are saying to be untrue.
Rubbish. The 'Coming Ice Age' of the 1970s was a very profitable wheeze for some climate 'scientists'...ludo said:
grumbledoak said:
ludo said:
...which as I have said isn't a game that is likely to pay off for them if they know what they are saying to be untrue.
Rubbish. The 'Coming Ice Age' of the 1970s was a very profitable wheeze for some climate 'scientists'...FunkyGibbon said:
ludo said:
The implications of the emails is that the scientists are deliberately fraudulent in the performing the science, which as I have said isn't a game that is likely to pay off for them if they know what they are saying to be untrue.
That's what I meant re: pay masters and flexibility. A lot of people have a lot of money tied up in this, so quite easy to believe that some decisions could be driven by financial agendas rather than science.I'm still paid a lot less than the average GP, or other similarly qualified professional outside academia.
HRG said:
ludo said:
grumbledoak said:
ludo said:
...which as I have said isn't a game that is likely to pay off for them if they know what they are saying to be untrue.
Rubbish. The 'Coming Ice Age' of the 1970s was a very profitable wheeze for some climate 'scientists'...
grumbledoak said:
ludo said:
Would you care to...
No. As I don't personally profit from this shameful little bangwagon, I shall let those that do push it themselves.turbobloke said:
IL_JDM said:
I just can't imagine someone putting in this much effort to fake it.
1,000's of emails, which are rather large and go into extreme depth.
With real telephone numbers, faxes, e-mails...that's how it looks.1,000's of emails, which are rather large and go into extreme depth.
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
IL_JDM said:
I just can't imagine someone putting in this much effort to fake it.
1,000's of emails, which are rather large and go into extreme depth.
With real telephone numbers, faxes, e-mails...that's how it looks.1,000's of emails, which are rather large and go into extreme depth.
You forgot the bit about painstakingly adding it to a fake, though.
ludo said:
it is a big if, it would mean that I would re-evalute the papers written by those involved. If they had been reproduced or validated by other groups and they were in good agreement with the data there would be no reason not to accept them, if they hadn't I would view them (the papers) as being "questionable" (I don't generally reject an idea completely unless I know it to be unequivocally incorrect, note that fact that I don't reject the possibility of the galactic cosmic ray theory, it is just I haven't seen convincing evidence that it is the cause of climatic change).
Yet you accept an idea unequivocally as correct, when the data is still in disupte, the author's are not actual experts in their field, their pay masters write them pretty big cheques (if you wanted a new Elise, you should have become a climatologist, apparently you don't need to understand climate to do it, just agree with the majority of like minded people) to provide the "accepted" answer and the peer's (that review the findings) have little knowledge of the subject?Any idiot can be baffled with big words.
The Excession said:
B Oeuf said:
The Excession said:
The 'RulesOfTheGame.pdf' document is pure dynamite!
link?PM and I'll email it to you if you like.
Halb said:
AshVX220 said:
TOur politicians (from all party's) will have to admit what they've done/said, following on from the expenses scandal this should put them all out to pasture.
Tory Dave might even change the team icon back from the tree into something more engineering related?
As for the Gavins that Guam alluded to, maybe Ludo is "The Gavin" from the Pro AGW groups?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't really have a theory, except that I am suspicious of such stories as it is next to impossible to prove it to be false, to the satisfaction of those that would like it to be true, even if it is false. There are also a lot of details that don't ring true, such as Phil Jones reading ClimateAudit frequently enough to know within a single day that his paper was being discussed, or the basic idea of a widespread conspiracy to produce bogus science on a topic where the realworld will expose their fraud.It would only take a few inserted sentences in genuine email correspondence to form an effective hoax, and it would not be difficult for an English or American hacker to make it look as if the source were Russian. It used to be easy enough to forge emails from whitehouse.gov that the average undergraduate could do it, so putting it on a Russian FTP site is hardly a challenge for a decent hacker.
As I said, if someone can reproduce the plots that are supposedly doctored, and reveal the doctoring, that would be good evidence, but the rest is just speculation.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff