Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations
Discussion
G_T said:
I can't speak for climate scientists, but the investigators on our studies (Oncology) won't distribute the data. We have to make them sign air-tight contracts from the on-set for that very reason. They consider it their intellectual property.
However, I don't understand how that could be possible for published data. To get a paper published you typical need to explain all models and provide all data (which needs to be ruthlessly scrutinised). As it forms part of the peer review process?
I've never read a journal that did not provide the data along with a statistical analysis where appropriate?
What about the publicly funded areas, I would have thought that evidence that is used as the basis of making policy decisions that could change our way of living should be out in the open for all to scrutinise - especially if it's tax payers' money that are paying the wages?However, I don't understand how that could be possible for published data. To get a paper published you typical need to explain all models and provide all data (which needs to be ruthlessly scrutinised). As it forms part of the peer review process?
I've never read a journal that did not provide the data along with a statistical analysis where appropriate?
If ‘scientists’ are found out to be towing a certain political line, to secure grants, and ‘tweaking’ the ‘science’ to fit, then it is in the public interest to know. I thought grant/government funded institutes and scientists were paid for the betterment of the population of the country, not to lie and twist ‘proof’ to fit political agendas!
kerplunk said:
Lots of comments like this everywhere- if what stuff is true?
Have to say he's got a point. I've poked through some of it and although some of it seems pretty haphazard, I can't see anything obviously damning. There's the one comment about data for the last 20 years being manipulated - that's supposedly explained somewhere else and if that's the extent of it then it's not very compelling. The rest of it just seems open to conjecture about their methods rather than anything more sinister.
They obviously believe their own research - nothing policital about that.
What am I missing?
kerplunk said:
Lots of comments like this everywhere- if what stuff is true?
Is that a rhetorical question? If not, then the faking of data and reports. The deliberate omissions which are akin to fraud.
My main complaint with this is, if true, it means the scientists are liars and the politicians may have have a defence....
ludo said:
john_p said:
Regardless of the science behind 'AGW', why is a scientific institution ACTIVELY blocking attempts for peers to review their data (see: numerous creative responses to FOI requests)
Surely they would be happy to distribute their models, raw data etc so that other people could confirm their findings?
Actually the data were never theirs to distribute, for example the Yamal data that McIntyre chased Briffa for, when McIntyre already had it. How did McIntyre come to have it already? Simple, when he asked Briffa for it, Briffa, said "sorry, I can't give it to you as I don't have permission from the owners" and then gave McIntyre contact details for the owners of the data, who gave it to them. If you want an example of dishonesty, try the reporting of those events on CA.Surely they would be happy to distribute their models, raw data etc so that other people could confirm their findings?
BTW, the models are distributed, the IPCC has an online database of the model output used in compiling AR4, for example. You can even get the fudgedsource code for many of the important ones. Most of the raw data are also available, from the owners of the datasets, in most cases.
PetrolTed said:
kerplunk said:
Lots of comments like this everywhere- if what stuff is true?
Have to say he's got a point. I've poked through some of it and although some of it seems pretty haphazard, I can't see anything obviously damning. There's the one comment about data for the last 20 years being manipulated - that's supposedly explained somewhere else and if that's the extent of it then it's not very compelling. The rest of it just seems open to conjecture about their methods rather than anything more sinister.
What am I missing?
"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? "
"http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/"
"If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
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.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
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.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……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….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“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! So what do we do about this? 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. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover."
"http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/"
"If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
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.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
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.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……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….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“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! So what do we do about this? 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. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.
Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.
But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover."
evil_dr_fish said:
kerplunk said:
Guam said:
mybrainhurts said:
kerplunk said:
Can anybody lend me a straw to clutch..?
That's pretty damning.
Actually I'd like to know what that's about as well - it's about the only one I've seen so far that aroused my curiosity and I explored it a bit late last night when this was breaking. I reckon we're likely to actually get an explanation for it at some point as it likely refers to the WMO yearly climate status report for 1999:
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wm...
...and there's other stuff in that particular email that makes me think it a relates to the hockey stick graph on the
first page (but I could well be wrong)
evil_dr_fish said:
The mere fact that they retain all core data, citing IPR means that the concept of peer review in any genuinely scientific context is utterly nonsense.
Were this a medical trial *not one* of these reports would even be considered as 'valid science'
...and for questioning the findamental lack of scientific rigour and demanding that the "scientific method" be adhered to, one is labelled a "sceptic" or worse still the emotive term "denialist" trying to lump us all in with Jew-Exterminating, neo nazis.
It would be just as easy for we "Climate Agnostics" to label "Climate Change Adherents" as a new wave of religious fundamentalists as their belief system is not scientifically rigorous and they react in an incredibly similar way to any other religious fundamentalist should you dare to question them!
Oh yeah... The other dramatic revelation among the e-mails was that they expect a global-cooling trend to persist for the next 20-30 years. Nothing sensational in that!
Haven't seen that one - can you point to it?Were this a medical trial *not one* of these reports would even be considered as 'valid science'
...and for questioning the findamental lack of scientific rigour and demanding that the "scientific method" be adhered to, one is labelled a "sceptic" or worse still the emotive term "denialist" trying to lump us all in with Jew-Exterminating, neo nazis.
It would be just as easy for we "Climate Agnostics" to label "Climate Change Adherents" as a new wave of religious fundamentalists as their belief system is not scientifically rigorous and they react in an incredibly similar way to any other religious fundamentalist should you dare to question them!
Oh yeah... The other dramatic revelation among the e-mails was that they expect a global-cooling trend to persist for the next 20-30 years. Nothing sensational in that!
The infamous PDF produced by an unconnected marketing company is about as un-damning as it gets I'm afraid.
Re-Read it but change one thing in your head
Presume that the Climate-Hippies are conclusively right.
It reads very differently then.
...so for a company contracted to brief on how one could 'sell' Climate Change to the masses - they have simply done what they have been asked.
Re-Read it but change one thing in your head
Presume that the Climate-Hippies are conclusively right.
It reads very differently then.
...so for a company contracted to brief on how one could 'sell' Climate Change to the masses - they have simply done what they have been asked.
kenwood said:
What a f*ing whitewash!One-sided? Much!
...At least it has made it to the mainstream media. While the BBC are blatantly ACC adherents, there will be other 'outlets' who actually release the information contained in said hacks!
Edited by evil_dr_fish on Friday 20th November 14:33
Jasandjules said:
kerplunk said:
Lots of comments like this everywhere- if what stuff is true?
Is that a rhetorical question? If not, then the faking of data and reports. The deliberate omissions which are akin to fraud.
My main complaint with this is, if true, it means the scientists are liars and the politicians may have have a defence....
kenwood said:
How to spin a news item! Naughty hackers gain access to file server and steal data. No mention of the contents of said data being potentially explosive if true.kenwood said:
Kind of - no mention made of the nature of the material, they're running with the hacking as the story. I suppose Watergate was a simple matter of burglary...evil_dr_fish said:
kenwood said:
What a f*ing whitewash!One-sided? Much!
...At least it has made it to the mainstream media. While the BBC are blatantly ACC adherents, there will be other 'outlets' who actually release the information contained in said hacks!
Edited by evil_dr_fish on Friday 20th November 14:33
BBC basically said "Lost some data, gosh, security woe".
Biased and incomplete. D-
otolith said:
kenwood said:
Kind of - no mention made of the nature of the material, they're running with the hacking as the story. I suppose Watergate was a simple matter of burglary...This could prove to be an equally decisive point in history.
kenwood said:
With a very pro-AGW slant. Funny that. I think I mentioned "spin" earlier.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
A much more information rich story.
Demonstrates the BBC one for the pu55y ar53d load of fence sitting that it is.
I'm still unconvinced that this will form the silver bullet to finally bring an end to this unscientific cliate change Thermageddon disaster movie but it certainly shines a light where there has been little so far - and where one has been so *desperately* needed.
A much more information rich story.
Demonstrates the BBC one for the pu55y ar53d load of fence sitting that it is.
I'm still unconvinced that this will form the silver bullet to finally bring an end to this unscientific cliate change Thermageddon disaster movie but it certainly shines a light where there has been little so far - and where one has been so *desperately* needed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff