CRU hack

  1. Twenty years ago, July 5, 1989, we heard this:


    So when the warnings expire they are just renewed:

    World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office

    But how scientific are these tipping points?

    Russil and Nyssa 2009

    also here

    What's the relation between science and politics propaganda? Especially thinking of Stephen Schneiders world famous quote: ...So we have to offer up some scary scenarios..
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Re: Climate tipping points

    Problem with all climate models is that they are based on trying to predict a "tipping point" within an open ended non-linear system such as the climate or weather.

    Without understanding the myriad of initial conditions to an infinite degree of accuracy, our predictions are best described as a "guess". This is a scientific fact.

    However we see that in order to promote agw many scientists appear willing to un-learn basic tenets of chaos theory and the unpredictability of non linear dynamics.

    I'm not arguing climate change or even global warming is not occuring but i would argue that we have no right to be making such bold predictions as those contained in catastrophic climate model predictions.

    So one does not have to argue about this or that one or multiple factors which may effect the climate. I suggest the actual process of climate modelling is flawed and unscientific from the very start, hence there is no foundational support for cliaiming we can know what the climate will be like exactly in 50 years.

    There is a lot of money involved in carbon trading these days so people should really be aware that folks are looking to make fortunes out of agw, just as humans made fortunes our of extracting fossil fuels.
     
  4. Re: Climate tipping points

    If someone could point me to a independent study that conclusivly proves that the world will end as a result of our green-house gasses in the next few decades I would really appreciate it. So far I have not found any evidence that conclusively proves it. A single company is cited by the UN and their purpose it proving global warming exists. It was not too long ago that global cooling was the order of the day.

    I have no problem with the "going green" movement, but this is getting rediculously political. It seems that the possibility of global warming in the extreme is being used more as a political leverage than a actual tool of progression. A new method by which the international community can measure each other.

    I believe in global warming, but not in the sense that it is portrayed in the media. I tried using the links to through the "forbidden topics" section and all they did was discuss the extreme potential of global warming.

    At what point did this become such a inarguable fact that no discussion takes place beyond what extreme problems will result due to the affects?
     
  5. f95toli

    f95toli 2,414
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Climate tipping points

    A single company:confused:
    Which company would that be?
    And have you read any of the thousands (probably tens of thousands by now) of papers that have been published on the topic, written by people working at hundreds of different research institutes around the world
     
  6. Re: Climate tipping points

    yes and practically all of them ignoring the unpredictability of systems such as the climate which are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Can they claim to understand all initial conditions to infinite accuracy? No.
     
  7. Re: Climate tipping points

    This is the company/organization most often referenced by government websites.

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_home.html

    When I said a single company this was the one I was referring to and this is the material that I am working through. I can't claim to have read tens of thousands of papers, but I don't think anyone else can either. But I am reading through these in an attempt to separate the political hype from what is really happening.

    I think that I am doing more now than the average person does in any case.

    I am not arguing that there is no man made climate change or that we shouldn't do anything about it. I am arguing that this is being used as a political tool to push through other lesser related issues. Just like the US is borderline implying that Americans are dropping dead in the streets and the only way to stop it is to force through a universal health care plan. They are arguing that the world will end any time now if we don't rapidly force all these changes through without actually doing anything that will work in the long term.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2009
  8. f95toli

    f95toli 2,414
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Climate tipping points

    You are not seriously refering to the IPCC as a "single company", are you?
    Hint: the "I" in IPCC is for intergovernmental
     
  9. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Climate tipping points

    Both your characterization of the organization and of its purpose are incorrect. Here's the "about" page on the IPCC:


    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm
     
  10. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Climate tipping points

    Interesting news

    It has been confirmed, Hadley Cru was hacked and the information released.

    I've said it before. I dated a climate scientist a few years ago, one that reported to Congress, and he constantly complained of being forced to fudge his reports to be pro agw so they could get more grant money. He finally quit. I can't say who he is, obviously.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
     
  11. Re: Climate tipping points

    I think that the question is how much they fudge the reports. If the take evidence that supports global warming and just blow it out of proportion then maybe the problem isn't as huge as governments try to make it appear but it's still a problem, one that might affect our future or the future of our species (which we should still take into consideration).

    About that British climate research thing with the 'hide the decline' in temperatures. When global warming occurs I'm pretty sure that at the beginning certain parts of the world get much, much colder since the rely on the ocean to transport the heat up to them... with that being changed to much colder waters from melting ice it causes a drop in temperature not a rise. Maybe they want to hide the decline in temperature because they don't want society to think that because temperatures are falling global warming is not a problem?

    I'm not saying I support what the government does to the sciences I think that they should stay out of that stuff and let scientists report directly to the public. However I don't think because the government overplays the global warming card that the problem should be over-looked so easily.
     
  12. Re: Climate tipping points

    I admit I'm not yet knowledgeable enough to understand everything being said in the emails, much less the data, but this looks very, very bad to me. About the only thing I can reasonably see in what has been leaked is that these scientists took great pains to doctor data to support their position. They also wrote about hiding information from a FOIA request and colluding to discredit their opponents by methods that had nothing to do with attacking their science.
     
  13. Re: Climate tipping points

    I don't know whether this site would permit linking or posting of the emails, considering they were stolen, but you can find them on wikileaks, as well as many other sites.

    It's also quite blatant—there is even at least one email from one scientist saying that he was extremely uncomfortable with the censorship of data that was going on. If these emails are real, every scientist involved should be out of work on Monday. I know I wouldn't trust anything told to me by an organization that employed them.

    Honestly, I don't really care all that much about climate change—I've always felt that humanity would adapt and survive whatever consequences were likely to occur.

    I shudder to even think about what creationists are going to do with this scandal. They'll go right to the American people and say "Look! You were wrong to trust the Climate Scientists, so why should you trust Biologists?"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2009
  14. Re: Climate tipping points

    I doubt it.
    Rubbish, if you're talking about the example discussed here.

    You can generally get data from the lead author of a study by emailing them. Sometimes in climate there is a collation of data from a large number of sources, some of whom keep copyright of the data, so it can't be released.

    Understanding is best confirmed by reproducing the results using independent data and lines of reasoning rather than by reworking the same data.
     
  15. Re: Climate tipping points

    Looks like it for controversial claims.

    That would help to refresh your memory. I think this thread shows that emails can be read out of context though. And the bottom line is this anecdotal evidence in not likely to see any supporting evidence.

    The requirements to alter data and conclusions that is documented has all been to weaken the case for climate change so that government can make the case for not disrupting the economy, (particularly the industries to which a president might be personally involved.)
     
  16. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Climate tipping points

    Except when the e-mails are this clear. There is no context you could put these in which could excuse them.

    Apparently you have decided to believe a certain way, no matter what proof to the contrary you are given. Doesn't matter to me. I happen to have more first hand knowledge than you do. You can say whatever you want, I know things you don't from an expert in the field. You are free to believe whatever you read. I had an expert confide in me, his girlfriend, about the deliberate skewing in favor of agw. I'm pretty confident. I had no interest in climate science before we met, but since it was his life, it was all I heard, he could no longer oversee his people, he could no longer do research, he had to write bogus pro agw reports to get grants, his last quota was $2 million a year. He quit a year later, he was disgusted.
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2009
  17. Re: Climate tipping points

    How about you look for yourself? That very link you gave me admits that there were emails asking people to delete correspondences to keep them from FOIA requests.
     
  18. Re: Climate tipping points

    To add to what Evo has already said; This is the politics forum. The discussions here are relatively informal. In some instances individuals may present their own personal anecdotes for consideration. They are not allowed to present such information as supportable evidence only as an anecdote which others may take or leave at face value. Some of us know and trust Evo and are likely to find her anecdotes valuable. If you do not then you are free to disregard them.
     
  19. Re: Climate tipping points

    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2009
  20. Re: Climate tipping points

    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...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 25, 2009
  21. Re: Climate tipping points

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?