• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DrPizza said:
1. From the Ron Paul site, it claims that it lists the area of their specialties. If you look at the actual list, it doesn't.

2. By signing the petition, a signer isn't necessarily saying that they disagree with global warming. In fact, one of the most prominent signers (and he was mentioned specifically by Fox news on several occasions) has gone on record stating that global warming is reality - he just thinks that the proposed solutions are going to far.

3. Start checking some of the names on that list. You can get an alphabetical list of those names. I only checked the backgrounds of a few. Having chosen 5 at random, and finding 5 crackpots who happen to have science degrees, I think that's statistically significant enough for me to cast a lot of doubt on that list. Go ahead, heck, start with the first person on the list. Crackpot.

4. While many on that list are capable of understanding the research, signing the petition doesn't necessarily mean that they've ever read a bit of the research. i.e. That petition is as meaningless as a facebook petition.
Click to expand...

Really? Out of that many people you think that's "statistically significant?"
 
wiretap said:
I'm not the one supporting the manipulated data front.
Click to expand...

Me either...let's start a club!

On the other hand, I'm able to understand that the people who's communications were exposed in this hack do not represent the entirety of global warming researchers, and that while they sounded like idiots, what they said proves NOTHING about global warming science.

That's why I said what I said. You're ignoring the facts in favor of a good story. I can respect people who honestly disagree with man-made global warming because they've seriously studied the science involved. But that's not what you're doing.
 
werepossum said:
Yeah, half those people haven't even manufactured data or written rigged programs to falsify results.

And they call themselves scientists!
Click to expand...

Have they done any actual science though?

I get that science is among the least respected fields in the US...but have we really slipped so far that you thinking signing a petition is how scientific facts are discovered?
 
Rainsford said:
Me either...let's start a club!

On the other hand, I'm able to understand that the people who's communications were exposed in this hack do not represent the entirety of global warming researchers, and that while they sounded like idiots, what they said proves NOTHING about global warming science.

That's why I said what I said. You're ignoring the facts in favor of a good story. I can respect people who honestly disagree with man-made global warming because they've seriously studied the science involved. But that's not what you're doing.
Click to expand...

These are some of the UN's top guns. I would ask that if there were better people out there with better science, wouldn't they have them?
 
You guys do realize that even if everything CRU ever produced was a fraud that it wouldn't alter the conclusion of man caused global warming, right? That conclusion is supported by multiple independent lines of data and this does absolutely nothing to change it.
 
eskimospy said:
You guys do realize that even if everything CRU ever produced was a fraud that it wouldn't alter the conclusion of man caused global warming, right? That conclusion is supported by multiple independent lines of data and this does absolutely nothing to change it.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for any ONE of them to accurately predict the climate.

Hockey stick anyone?
 
eskimospy said:
You guys do realize that even if everything CRU ever produced was a fraud that it wouldn't alter the conclusion of man caused global warming, right? That conclusion is supported by multiple independent lines of data and this does absolutely nothing to change it.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see those conclusions that prove man made global warming without the fraudulent numbers put out by CRU and the suspect recalculated data and unreleased models that NASA uses. Put them out there so we can see them.
 
Ozoned said:
These are some of the UN's top guns. I would ask that if there were better people out there with better science, wouldn't they have them?
Click to expand...

You'd have to ask the UN that, I suppose. My point remains the same though, there are plenty of climate scientists out there who have nothing to do with this hack, and who support the idea of man-made global warming. Do you disagree?
 
Rainsford said:
You'd have to ask the UN that, I suppose. My point remains the same though, there are plenty of climate scientists out there who have nothing to do with this hack, and who support the idea of man-made global warming. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

The problem is many/most of them were using CRUs fudged data. That's why this story is so huge.
 
spidey07 said:
The problem is many/most of them were using CRUs fudged data. That's why this story is so huge.
Click to expand...

You have some proof to back that up? Scientists tend to conduct their own research if they're going to write papers about it. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of the world's climate scientists all use data from one group at one University.

That said, it's also worth noting that people jumped on the idea of the leak being evidence of data manipulation a little too quickly. The emails make the scientists involved sound a little shady, and a lot like a bunch of assholes, but DIRECT evidence of manipulated data is a little hard to come by. Certainly I have yet to see any actual analysis of the data in question suggesting it really was "fudged". I see lots and lots of dissection of who said what in emails, but that's not how science works.
 
bfdd said:
yeah... not really. it wouldn't matter because the sample base is to small. if you want to argue about that you're arguing with the wrong person.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The sample Base is quite large in this case. Especially if the names are picked randomly. It shows a very high probability that the amount of "Hacks" makes up a large portion of the Group.

We don't really know what he means by "Hacks", but assuming he means those unlikely to know anything directly on the subject, it brings into question the validity of the whole list.
 
bfdd said:
yeah... not really. it wouldn't matter because the sample base is to small. if you want to argue about that you're arguing with the wrong person.
Click to expand...

Are you "the wrong person" because you don't understand probability theory?

Imagine I gave you a huge box with 30,000 blue and red marbles in it, and told you to pick 5 without looking. What do you think the chances are that you'd pull out 5 red ones while the majority of the box is blue? It's a pretty small chance. Which is kind of the point here.
 
Rainsford said:
Are you "the wrong person" because you don't understand probability theory?

Imagine I gave you a huge box with 30,000 blue and red marbles in it, and told you to pick 5 without looking. What do you think the chances are that you'd pull out 5 red ones while the majority of the box is blue? It's a pretty small chance. Which is kind of the point here.
Click to expand...

Pretty much...but I'd change the situation a bit: You have a huge box with 30,000 Blue marbles in it, and told to pick 5 marbles without looking. You then end up pulling 5 Red marbles from it.
 
They had a huge box with 30,000 blue marbles of data in it. When the blue marbles of data didn't give them the results they wanted they painted the blue marbles red and said "see! We have AGW and these red marbles prove it!"
 
Last edited:
Rainsford said:
You have some proof to back that up? Scientists tend to conduct their own research if they're going to write papers about it. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of the world's climate scientists all use data from one group at one University.

That said, it's also worth noting that people jumped on the idea of the leak being evidence of data manipulation a little too quickly. The emails make the scientists involved sound a little shady, and a lot like a bunch of assholes, but DIRECT evidence of manipulated data is a little hard to come by. Certainly I have yet to see any actual analysis of the data in question suggesting it really was "fudged". I see lots and lots of dissection of who said what in emails, but that's not how science works.
Click to expand...


their funding criteria more then likely required them to use the juggled data. By the way. Just how many trees are the tree ring data based on??
 
monovillage said:
They had a huge box with 30,000 blue marbles of data in it. When the blue marbles of data didn't give them the results they wanted they painted the blue marbles red and said "see! We have AGW and these red marbles prove it!"
Click to expand...

More like:

They had a bag of red marbles, a thousand sceintists verified and reported that. Then one scientist got lazy and didn't check all the marbels, and sent an e-mail saying 'I didn't check all the marbles so there might be some blue ones way inside as far as I know, and if there are a few we'll need to paint them red while we look into it'. Then the right wing people who are utterly corrupt, whether directly from the people who want to make money by denying global climate change or indirectly by simply wanting issues to fight against Democrats on, hyped the incident, and ignored the thousamd scientists who had verified the red marbles.

And you came along and posted the right-wing lie, claiming that the one scientist was the whole story and the other many scientists who had not done the wrong thing don't count.

What idiocy. The one guy appears to have done wrong. That has nothing to do with the rest of the scientists. If you want to critcize the one guy fine, if you want to attack the science don't be an iidiot.

I'm pretty convinced that if climagte change was a phony issue made up by corporate interests for profit, and Democracts said it didn't exist, the same deniers here now would be here insisting it's real.

They are so consistently just suckers who have identified as opponents of pretty much whatever Democrats say, who parrot the propaganda fed to them by right-wing interests. It's disgusting.
 
Even if true... I doubt it is...

Man will continue to fuck up the planet for greed. No ones gonna tell us all that there is no gas to heat your home or start your car. Here is a bike and some solar cells and a windmill yeah, right... Good luck!
 
RED COMMIE CRAIG -------->>>>>>>> "Then the right wing people who are utterly corrupt, whether directly from the people who want to make money by denying global climate change or indirectly by simply wanting issues to fight against Democrats on, hyped the incident, and ignored the thousamd scientists who had verified the red marbles."


Sorry Criag - who the fuck is making all of the money off of climate change? Your god Al Gore? Funny how he ignores all open debate. Sham, sham , sham. You are a worthless pawn in this business - don't even get pain to spout propaganda for our new red government.
 
Craig234 said:
Then the right wing people who are utterly corrupt, whether directly from the people who want to make money by denying global climate change
Click to expand...

Ha! You're so delusional. Did you see the huge sacks of money global warming scientists rake in? Did you see the snowstorm in Houston the other day? Don't you think we better be damn right about this before we jump in and destroy our economy?

Turn your clocks ahead a half hour, take a 4 minute shower, and put Family Guy on the tv - you'll start to feel better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top