Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[Doc Savage Fan]

What the fuck is wrong with trying to respect the environment that created and feeds us and our future?

I find it is mostly capitalism at all cost Republicans who deny man made climatological disturbance and LOVE to see corporations keep making money and dumping sewage and chemicals and such in our habitat.

Why is hate for the earth and hate for average people a Republican thing 🙁

And what the fuck is wrong with trying to respect the truth about global warming?

 

[IGBT]

Ultra-Shens.

not all democrats are eco-KOOKS or purveyors of fraud.

 

[dahunan]

And what the fuck is wrong with trying to respect the truth about global warming?

LMAO.. 90% of all you who want to say it isn't happening or that there is nothing man has done or can do about it... do so just so you can keep polluting and trying to pull some dollars out of the earth with no care about the destruction

 

[OutHouse]

What the fuck is wrong with trying to respect the environment that created and feeds us and our future?

I find it is mostly capitalism at all cost Republicans who deny man made climatological disturbance and LOVE to see corporations keep making money and dumping sewage and chemicals and such in our habitat.

Why is hate for the earth and hate for average people a Republican thing 🙁

holy shit you can not be serious!!! please tell me my sarcasm meter is broken.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

holy shit you can not be serious!!! please tell me my sarcasm meter is broken.

I wish he was being sacrastic...but it's obvious he seriously believes what he imagines to be true. Ignorance and bigotry go hand in hand.

 

[IGBT]

the eco-KOOKS are doing the same thing the tobbacco companies did when they purposefully skewed their "research" in an effort to prove their product was safe.

 

[OutHouse]

I wish he was being sacrastic...but it's obvious he seriously believes what he imagines to be true. Ignorance and bigotry go hand in hand.

wow, its so hard to believe that people actually think republicans are the cause of all bad and dems are the angels of all that is good. its nothing but cultist brainwashing.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

wow, its so hard to believe that people actually think republicans are the cause of all bad and dems are the angels of all that is good. its nothing but cultist brainwashing.

It's fucking scary as hell. Darwin was wrong...mankind is devolving.

 

[feralkid]

not all democrats are eco-KOOKS or purveyors of fraud.

True.


Shens, nonetheless.

 

[shira]

I particularly liked the emails about who could be 'trusted' or not. Shira...there was obvious collusion to thwart anyone who had the audacity to ask questions. Everything was kept hidden with accessibility to extremely important information limited to an inner circle. This may not seem important to you for reasons I don't understand...but it reeks to high heaven for others. I suggest that you think twice if this is your idea of good science.

What you're seeing is what happens when scientists are confronted by someone (in this particular case, Patrick Michaels of the [libertarian] Cato Institute, which has an ideological opposition to government regulation in general and - surprise, surprise - advocates only very limited government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions) perceived to be politically motivated against the scientists' findings. Worse than this lack of openness - which amounts to a "failure to cooperate" with the bad guy - is the fact that there's apparently also been behind-the-scenes lobbying to suppress publication of papers by those viewed as politically motivated.

I don't defend these practices (in fact, I earlier provided a link to a Washington Post editorial that raised these very points). But these problems don't amount to a global conspiracy to create a fake catastrophe. They demonstrate that climate scientists are imperfect human beings with egos, just like other scientists. Look at the decades-long controversy surrounding the full release of the dead seas scrolls. Look at Robert Gallo's behavior vis a vis the discovery of the HIV virus. Letting your ego get the better of you doesn't mean you have something to hide.

 

[shira]

And what the fuck is wrong with trying to respect the truth about global warming?

The "truth" according to whom? A fringe group of ideologues? A tiny minority of climatologists?

Oh, I get it, you've determined that the thousands of research papers reinforcing climate change are all based on fake data. And you've made this determination how? Because a handful of scientists indicate in emails that they don't want to cooperate with Patrick Michaels?

You criticize scientists as unwarrantedly extrapolating from at most a few hundred years of climate data to a grand conclusion about humanity's effects on climate. Yet it's perfectly valid for YOU to blithely extrapolate from a few emails and determine that the entire theory of anthropogenic climate change is a phony.

The irony here is so thick it should remain shoved tightly up your rectum.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What you're seeing is what happens when scientists are confronted by someone (in this particular case, Patrick Michaels of the [libertarian] Cato Institute, which has an ideological opposition to government regulation in general and - surprise, surprise - advocates only very limited government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions) perceived to be politically motivated against the scientists' findings. Worse than this lack of openness - which amounts to a "failure to cooperate" with the bad guy - is the fact that there's apparently also been behind-the-scenes lobbying to suppress publication of papers by those viewed as politically motivated.

I don't defend these practices (in fact, I earlier provided a link to a Washington Post editorial that raised these very points). But these problems don't amount to a global conspiracy to create a fake catastrophe. They demonstrate that climate scientists are imperfect human beings with egos, just like other scientists. Look at the decades-long controversy surrounding the full release of the dead seas scrolls. Look at Robert Gallo's behavior vis a vis the discovery of the HIV virus. Letting your ego get the better of you doesn't mean you have something to hide.

...and then again...maybe it does...who's to know? And therein lies the rub. IMO...this inner circle crap and no transparency 'science' is total bullshit and should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form by anyone...regardless of which side of the AGW fence they happen to reside on.

 

[shira]

...and then again...maybe it does...who's to know? And therein lies the rub. IMO...this inner circle crap and no transparency 'science' is total bullshit and should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form by anyone...regardless of which side of the AGW fence they happen to reside on.

I agree, I agree, and I agree.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The "truth" according to whom? A fringe group of ideologues? A tiny minority of climatologists?

Oh, I get it, you've determined that the thousands of research papers reinforcing climate change are all based on fake data. And you've made this determination how? Because a handful of scientists indicate in emails that they don't want to cooperate with Patrick Michaels?

You criticize scientists as unwarrantedly extrapolating from at most a few hundred years of climate data to a grand conclusion about humanity's effects on climate. Yet it's perfectly valid for YOU to blithely extrapolate from a few emails and determine that the entire theory of anthropogenic climate change is a phony.

The irony here is so thick it should remain shoved tightly up your rectum.

And how do you come to the conclusion that I've stated in this thread that "the entire theory of anthropogenic climate change is a phony" based on these emails. What color is the sky on your world? If anyone here is 'extrapolating' it's YOU.

 

[wetech]

And how do you come to the conclusion that I've stated in this thread that "the entire theory of anthropogenic climate change is a phony" based on these emails. What color is the sky on your world? If anyone here is 'extrapolating' it's YOU.

I only have the below post to base these findings. It's been edited based on my interpretation of your posting history; and the original, unedited post has been deleted from the forum servers. You'll have to trust me.

The entire theory of anthropogenic climate change is a phony, based on these emails.

 

[Rainsford]

Have I mentioned lately how much I hate the "climate change" issue? People who couldn't pass a high school science class "debating" the particulars of climate science, as if they understand it better than the legions of experts already looking at the issue. But don't worry, being concerned with "the truth" makes up for a complete lack of expertise or domain specific knowledge. And it's really just a coincidence that nearly every person involved just happens to come to an unbiased conclusion that perfectly matches with their political beliefs. That sure was a lucky break!

And it's easy to just bash conservatives on this issue, as they don't even hardly have any climate scientists to back them up, but to the extent that the issue has become politicized, the liberals are just as at fault. Al Gore is more about the politics than the facts, which makes him just as bad as the folks on the right. It doesn't matter if the facts end up proving him right, we're never going to honestly be able to consider the issue while both sides are busy screaming at each other.

 

[Ozoned]

Have I mentioned lately how much I hate the "climate change" issue? .

It wouldn't be an issue if it had not been politicized...

 

[IGBT]

It wouldn't be an issue if it had not been politicized...

it's the only way fraud could have legs.

 

[Rainsford]

It wouldn't be an issue if it had not been politicized...

I agree, but I think politicizing climate change was inevitable in a country where people drive Priuses and gigantic pickup trucks as a form of ideological expression, and hardly anybody on either side has much respect for science.

 

[maluckey]

Of course this whole thing just gets BETTER!

Now it is reported by the CRU that most of the ORIGINAL, UNMANIPULATED data collected by University of East Anglia was destroyed for the convenience of space saving. Haven't seen this in the thread (unless I did).

As an Analyst by trade (for the last couple of years), I can tell you that you NEVER throw away the originals while there is unfinished work.

Global Climate Change data is still being collected and analyzed, so where they got off throwing out the originals and only keeping the " value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) " manipulated working copies is termination of employment where I work.

The biggest issue is that if MMGW is real, there's far les proof, and if it's not......there's far less proof. Either way, there's less focus on something that is important, and more focus on how STUPID people that are supposed to be intelligent and objective (Universities) can be. No wonder why Johnny can't read, or come to any conclusion based on the facts...THE FACTS WERE THROWN OUT TO SAVE SPACE!!!!.

 

[umbrella39]

As Dave Ross said, it would be interesting to see a similar data dump from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as well as the e-mail accounts of official skeptics Pat Michaels (former Virginia state climatologist) & Steve McIntyre (editor of Climate Audit), and the public relations offices of every major oil company so folks could have access to both sides.

 

[Toastedlightly]

As far as the data dump goes, that seems to be a big corporate no-no. Where I work we have notarized lab notebooks from the 1960s which contain all of my company's research. This is done to defend our copyrights.

This was a horrible case of lacking foresight on their behalf.

 

[yuppiejr]

As far as the data dump goes, that seems to be a big corporate no-no. Where I work we have notarized lab notebooks from the 1960s which contain all of my company's research. This is done to defend our copyrights.

This was a horrible case of lacking foresight on their behalf.

Read between the lines, anyone who believes the original CRU data was destroyed on accident "to save space" is simply naive particularly after the recent data breach that so hurt the cause. If there was nothing to hide and the data in it's original, unmodified form was such definitive proof of man's role in climate change it would have been made public long ago.

The folks who continue clinging to the religion of man's role in global warming are either gullible to a fault or themselves a beneficiary of related grant money or public investments (ethanol producers, "green tech" giants).

 

[yuppiejr]

As Dave Ross said, it would be interesting to see a similar data dump from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as well as the e-mail accounts of official skeptics Pat Michaels (former Virginia state climatologist) & Steve McIntyre (editor of Climate Audit), and the public relations offices of every major oil company so folks could have access to both sides.

Complete transparency (didn't Obama campaign on this?) particularly among those institutions receiving public dollars and research grants should be expected on both sides in the debate. If there's nothing to hide why is all of the source data supporting man's role in global climate change so hard to find? Like it or not the burden of proof on man's role in global climate change lies with those who support the notion, not it's skeptics - though both sides should be forthright with their data and conclusions.

 

[boomerang]

Cap and trade legislation is as good as dead in the Senate. Our politicians don't have the stomach for it. What will be accomplished in Copenhagen has essentially been agreed to and it's fallen far short of the original goals.

Obama will go over and make some commitments. He knows he can't back those up and so does the world. They're very aware of how our political system works.

So, rejoice or cry in your beer. It's all been put on the back burner. We're coming up on another one of the sequential 10 year milestones where there is no turning back. I'm sure that will be extended another 10 years.

We've gone from the dangers of global cooling, to the dangers of global warming, to the dangers of climate change. How it will be packaged in the next go round remains to be seen. There's always a new generation coming along to influence.