CRU hack

Bored Wombat

Yes it does need to be interpreted. The RealClimate discussion shows how some of the points are much more innocent than are being claimed.

And it needs to be read in the context that some of these email go back a decade, so had plenty of opportunity to be cherry picked. If you assume from the timing that this attack was designed to disrupt public support for agreement at Copenhagen, then it can be assumed that this is a very biased sample.

So we know from the last 25 years of scholarly research that climate change is real, and is attributable to human activity to a "very likely" confidence. These emails don't show a huge international conspiracy, so that is still the case. We can assume that the missing emails are the ones that show the research to be valid and genuine.

If we needed to. Of course the research at UAE isn't the word of God. It has to be reproduced just like everyone else's. So there's no genuine question that results have been created and sold to the scientific community without their due consideration.

Some people are enjoying mileage out of taking some of them out of context, and pretending "trick" means sneaky thing and not mathematical technique, but that deserves to be flatly denied. Because its wrong.

I think that it is important to understand that the keystone of the denialists position is that the scientists are all lying so that they can get funding.

We have anectodes that this doesn't work, and a scientist will generally quit if asked to do that.

But the broader evidence is important to understand. Governments don't want to have to change an economy. Government don't want to consider the environment. They want a steaming along economy and near full employment, with few companies going bust and being replaced, because this is good for what they want ... re-election.

And in science it is generally never good for one's career to respect the status quo. It is the overturning of paradigms that is most respected, so claiming the tow the line for career purposes is equally crazy.

But certainly Obama is much more pro-science than Bush was ... but Governments come and go. There'll be more Bushes to come.

Choronzon

And how about the emails that say "please delete these past emails that are being requested under FOIA and please email so and so, who's email address I can't find, and have him do the same." Was that taken out of context?

Not to mention that RealClimate doesn't have the power to wave their hand at comments and make them innocent. Even the innocent explanation that you seem to believe implies to me that that were attempting to alter the appearance data to suit their particular argument. I expect that from partisan pollsters and politicians, but if a scientist does that then their next job should be trying to remember if I wanted extra pickles on my whopper.

As for cherry picking emails—I couldn't care less. A million emails discussing honest science doesn't make up for the one discussing "altering the definition of peer-reviewed" so that they can keep opposing research out of journals. Acting like a creationist FTW, I guess?

Awesome straw-man you have there, trying to make me defend both conspiracy theorists and George Bush in order to point out that these Scientists have quite likely destroyed any chance of Climate Scientists enjoying the respect of the populace for the next ten years. Wait till Monday and watch how the networks run with it.

Except that it's a wonderful topic if you're the party out of power. Not only might it help you get back in power, but it basically writes you a blank check for every little social program you can think up. If a hundred years from now we're not all drowning or huddled on mountain tops than you can claim the credit for saving us all. Hell, I've even heard Climate Change being used as a reason for universal health care.

As for President Obama, I can only hazard a guess that scientists doing research into liquefying coal or other such unsexy pursuits aren't going to be looking fondly back on the next few years. Of course if you can write a legible proposal on a car that runs off good intentions and fairy dust you're probably already getting a few million dollars out of the stimulus package.

I'll also say this— you better hope that whoever is behind this leaked material hasn't torn a page out of Breitbart's playbook, because if they are sitting on worse material so that people like you can hem and haw over what's plain as day for a few days before they hit you with another round of stolen emails...

Bored Wombat

Yeah, probably.

If you send a later version of a document it's not unethical to clean up earlier erroneous or less processed or detailed versions rather than send them.

For instance.

You should care more then. If you have 10000 emails to scan through to look for one that can be interpreted as dodgy, finding one is very weak evidence of dodgy goings on.

You can't alter the definition of peer reviewed journal. The ISI does though, but it is very inclusive.

Journals stand on their reputation. It is a valuable part of the process to discuss which ones have dropping standards. It's the only factor keeping Journals trying to publish good research.

Not a straw man, unless you're defending the denier's position.

Surely we know enough basic physics on this board to understand that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will increase the greenhouse effect. It's not rocket science.

Perhaps, but they're not controlling the funding of the government researchers. (Such as NASA).

It's not just that. He's pro science. I'm not aware of the details sitting as I do on the other side of the world, but research into stem cells and research by organisations that Bush found ethically abhorrent now booms ahead in America.

I don't care what is in stolen emails. Except to point out that some of the accusations are a bit fanciful.

I do hope that the criminals and their supporters (if, as it looks, this is a bounty job), that broke the system are found and fully prosecuted.

Choronzon

Actually I'm pretty sure that it is unethical. If someone makes a FOIA request for info that they are entitled by law to have, you don't get to go back and edit the info before producing it. You most definitely do not get to delete entire email conversations that are required to be furnished upon request.

Really? So I should take a look at all of those moments in a criminals life when he wasn't committing a crime before I can judge him on those few moments when he did? If one of my employees steal from me, it doesn't particularly matter to me all the times that she hasn't. Once is most definitely enough.

You're right, I can't. I can also easily promise you that I have never once written an email saying that I would.

What made these guys the gatekeeper's of truth? What right did they have to ridicule other opinions and try and stonewall them from scientific debate?

I'll tell you what—nothing. They should pay for their arrogance with ruined careers and the scorn of society.



I actually do not know one person who disputes that fact, nor have I read any articles stating as such. Many have claimed that the amount increased or the the effect of the increase are negligible, but that is nowhere near the same thing. Thanks for at least denying one straw man before putting up another.


So now we can exchange what President Bush found "ethically abhorrent" for what President Obama believes to be? Don't try and make President Obama to be some champion of science. The guy lies as well as Bush and can talk out of three different sides of his mouth—Bush could barely talk out of two sides.

Yes, good plan there. When the current administration no longer fins itself able to drum up any meaningful support for there Climate Change initiatives, you can tell me again how much you don't care what some stolen emails say. I think ACORN tried pretty much the same argument.

Bored Wombat

You're making up the bit about going back and editing it, though aren't you?

How do you know that entire email conversations were requested?

I think that you're points are pretty weak if all you have is straw man.

My point was that there is no evidence that a crime was committed. Not as you are reduced to pretending, that the crime was rare.

Fine.
It's still fine and important for scientists to discuss which journals have falling standards.

That's how science works. Rubbish research is ridiculed.

they have every right, and they have an obligation. It is not arrogance to have an opinion on the quality of scientific research if you are a scientist in the field.

I would be happy to have scientists who take the time to read and become familiar with other scientists research, and develop an opinion on it working for me.

And it does not elicit scorn from me but respect.

Perhaps you object to the tone: This just in - these are personal emails.

Obama, by comparison, is a champion of science.

Evo

BW, at my company we are warned to NEVER delete anything if a request for information has been made. This is done once or twice a year just in my department. Of course e-mails are backed up, so even if I did delete, there would still be a record, so I would be putting myself in serious jeopardy for doing so. For someone to suggest that they destroy or alter evidence is very serious.

Evo

The release of the e-mails and data files the other day is just another black eye for the pro agw movement. They now have reason to believe that the information released from Hadley Cru was someone on the inside that wanted to blow the whistle.

Another eye opener was last year when the "review process" for the IPCC report was exposed for cherry picking data, and refusing to allow data or discussion that was not pro-agw or in any way disagreed with the pro agw reviewer's version they planned to publish.

When ever someone said the data could be wrong, that previous records had been ignored, etc... They were told that sorry, can't be included, not enough space. But when someone says Great job! They are included with a note: Thanks!

Here scientific concerns about the validity of data and accuracy of assumptions

IPCC reject reason, with no data to back it up:

Later objections are brought up rejecting to allowing verbiage about the uncertainties becuase they didn't want anyone to think there might actually be uncerntanties. Some even get into disparaging their peers that disagree with them.

The WG1 discussions can be read here. The IPCC had originally refused to release this to the public, but decided to release it due to a pending lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/...200&jp2Res=.25

Evo

Here is an excellent article about whjat was in the filed released from Hadley Cru

From Wall Street Journal Politics section

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...eference-frame

Rather embarrassing, non-professional behavior, IMO.

Sorry!

It is quite unproffesional but reading all this still doesn't make me think that global warming isn't a potential problem. I'm not going to lie but when I hear christians blabing on about intelligent design I sometimes feel the urge to beat them up too. This goes with any scientific theory I have strong belief in, lol.

The deleting of emails etc. is questionable but what is their response to doing this?

I don't think you can claim global warming isn't a problem just because the branches of scientists don't like each other or make nasty remarks.

For instance back to my example of intelligent design. People who believe in a more scientific form of abiogenesis make the same remarks towards skeptics, that doesn't make their theory less correct.

Bored Wombat

Fine.
Okay. What you haven't proven is that someone was destroying or altering evidence.

Evo

Interesting, so you don't think that intentional skewing of facts to create a false outcome may shed some doubt on the claims?

Sorry!

They've already talked about the methods being used not being secret. Just because people didn't take the time to look into before doesn't mean anything about 'skewed' facts. It just means you thought they were saying one thing but they actually were saying another thing. That's the politics of it though.

Evo

Did you read that e-mail?

Sorry!

Yes three times looking for specific claims to 'Let's skew the data to mess around with the public.' Couldn't find it. Maybe you could point me to which lines I need to read between?

As well, let's make this known, I have no doubt that politics have played a major role in the development of these theories and how they are portrayed to the public. I also have no doubt as to the exageration that some of the data goes through. I don't however think that this discredits global warming as a serious problem to the future of our planet...

You would be better of proposing to me that the Earth is naturally getting hotter (which I believe it is to a certain extent) than telling me that global warming is just a bunch of skewed results.

Sorry!

If you're talking about where he's talking about trying every trick to milk something out of it then this doesn't indicate skewed results. It indicates he was trying different methods to find results to fit their model, which scientists do all the time. As I said in my previous post it is also no secret that the global warming 'sector' of scientists do this or even what methods they use. Just because you weren't aware of it before these emails doesn't mean anything...

Evo

I was quite aware of it. See my posts about the climate scientist I dated that was always complaining about being made to fudge his reports to make it seem like agw was a real concern. It's not unheard of in science, unfortunately, it just points out that you can't believe the data that's presented in these types of sciences. Take it all with a grain of salt and realize that it's not necessarily what you're being lead to believe.

Choronzon

So what I should take from your post is that even if the Scientists doing the research are unscrupulous criminals who have skewed data to match their conclusions (and then withheld the data), I should still accept those conclusions?

I could understand that if the misconduct was personal, but this was people messing about with scientific research while hoisting themselves up as protectors of the earth.