Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[charrison]

Well right, but I'm also guessing that he's about the only postal clerk in the history of postal clerks that you should listen to on the topic of theoretical physics. Not exactly good odds on that one. It's not that CAD's good friend the blogger can't be right, it's just that it's nowhere close to a credible source, and odds are pretty high that the blogger doesn't know what he's talking about. (not to mention the high probability that he would allow his extreme partisanship to influence his opinion)

Like I said before, if a legitimate scientist or scientific organization feels like we need to change our conclusions about global warming due to the analysis of this (and you know they are checking it out), then that's great. Hell, it would be awesome if we found out AGW wasn't happening. I find it highly unlikely, but I would cheer the day it happened.

This isn't public policy or political ideology we're talking about, where relatively uninformed people can still have valid opinions, this is extremely complex, hard science. The fact that people on here think that by reading a few blog posts on the internet that they can debate the topic to me is ridiculous.

And clearly science should act in an open manner and show the data and methods that have been used to come to their conclusions and right now with the current leak of email and data it is fairly apparently this has not been happening. This is not how science should operate

 

[Corn]

And clearly science should act in an open manner and show the data and methods that have been used to come to their conclusions and right now with the current leak of email and data it is fairly apparently this has not been happening. This is not how science should operate

Quit asking questions and just believe dammit.

 

[little elvis]

Just remember Einstein was was working the postoffice before he officially became a scientist. There is a problem with the data and very possibly big problems with data as they claim to have lost the source data. If none of this can be reproduced or verified it is at the very least very bad science, even if they are right.

Einstein worked in the Swiss Patent Office and not the post office and he did so after he got his degree in math and physics.

 

[sandorski]

And clearly science should act in an open manner and show the data and methods that have been used to come to their conclusions and right now with the current leak of email and data it is fairly apparently this has not been happening. This is not how science should operate

I find this to be a curious statement. Has/Have these things not been shared by those involved in the Process?

 

[charrison]

I find this to be a curious statement. Has/Have these things not been shared by those involved in the Process?

From the leaked emails it looks like they did not want to share the data with anyone who might not agree with the end results and would rather delete it than to share it.

 

[charrison]

Einstein worked in the Swiss Patent Office and not the post office and he did so after he got his degree in math and physics.

Thanks for the minor correction.

 

[IGBT]

From the leaked emails it looks like they did not want to share the data with anyone who might not agree with the end results and would rather delete it than to share it.

it's no surprise. and more to come. You have to realize the people pushing this are nothing more then political hacks in white coats masquerading as scientists funded by a political agenda with tax payer money. They will do anything up to and including fraud to promote the agenda all under the guise of science.

 

[monovillage]

I find this to be a curious statement. Has/Have these things not been shared by those involved in the Process?

You know they haven't, no reason to play dumb.

 

[Ozoned]

it's no surprise. and more to come. You have to realize the people pushing this are nothing more then political hacks in white coats masquerading as scientists funded by a political agenda with tax payer money. They will do anything up to and including fraud to promote the agenda all under the guise of science.

I don't know,,,,Global warming,,,Global cooling,,, Climate change,,, existed for millions of years before they discovered it.


You also, can believe and fill up the offering plate.

You will be saving the world.

I don't think they offer an afterlife with this plan. Hmmmm........

 

[werepossum]

I don't know,,,,Global warming,,,Global cooling,,, Climate change,,, existed for millions of years before they discovered it.


You also, can believe and fill up the offering plate.

You will be saving the world.

I don't think they offer an afterlife with this plan. Hmmmm........

LOL All religions are not created equal.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's the raw tree ring proxy data before CRU's adjustment 'technique'...this blatantly shows the decline they so much wanted to hide from us dumb folk.

Interestingly...the infamous IPCC 'hockey stick' graph shows the tree ring data starting in 1400...but it mysteriously disappears in 1961. How curious is that?

Nice 'trick'.

 

[sandorski]

Here's the raw tree ring proxy data before CRU's adjustment 'technique'...this blatantly shows the decline they so much wanted to hide from us dumb folk.

Interestingly...the infamous IPCC 'hockey stick' graph shows the tree ring data starting in 1400...but it mysteriously disappears in 1961. How curious is that?

Nice 'trick'.

We have actual Temps and don't need to rely on Tree Rings after '61. Which is where the problem lies, the Tree Rings diverge from the actual Temps. You're looking at this situation backwards. It has nothing to do with '61 until Now, but the Tree Ring Data prior to when Temp measurements were possible and gathered. It seems obvious that, unless some reasonably Scientific explanation can be given, that Tree Ring data prior to Temp Measurements is not very reliable.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We have actual Temps and don't need to rely on Tree Rings after '61. Which is where the problem lies, the Tree Rings diverge from the actual Temps. You're looking at this situation backwards. It has nothing to do with '61 until Now, but the Tree Ring Data prior to when Temp measurements were possible and gathered. It seems obvious that, unless some reasonably Scientific explanation can be given, that Tree Ring data prior to Temp Measurements is not very reliable.

The way I figure it...we have 3 possibilities:
1) Tree ring proxy is valid
2) Tree ring proxy is invalid
3) Tree ring proxy is valid from 1400 until 1960 and then inexplicitly wrong thereafter

BTW...MANY studies use the 'altered' tree ring data after 1960. Ouch.

 

[gsellis]

No, it's because (as I've mentioned before), none of us are climate scientists. Neither is the guy on the blog CAD linked to. I could join CAD in spouting off bullshit that I don't understand, but what would the point be?

He thinks a blog's opinion is important enough to call into question decades of peer reviewed literature and the opinion of pretty much every scientific organization on the planet. I, having some standards of evidence, don't. It's not like real scientists won't analyze this data, and if there's anything to make of it someone will find that out and I will adjust my opinion accordingly.

You keep running out this canard. Do you see the logic error in it? "...(N)one of us are climate scientists." and "... the opinion of pretty much every scientific organization on the planet." Per your argument, the opinion of every scientific organization (which is a false premise anyway) is not a valid opinion because... they are not climate scientist. And real scientist DO have a problem with the methods, but are unable to demonstrate them clearly because the 'real' climate scientist are not following real scientific method and publishing.

 

[Toastedlightly]

We have actual Temps and don't need to rely on Tree Rings after '61. Which is where the problem lies, the Tree Rings diverge from the actual Temps. You're looking at this situation backwards. It has nothing to do with '61 until Now, but the Tree Ring Data prior to when Temp measurements were possible and gathered. It seems obvious that, unless some reasonably Scientific explanation can be given, that Tree Ring data prior to Temp Measurements is not very reliable.

Sandorski, thank you for saying this. It seems people are not understanding the actual scientific 'problem' with the data. It isn't that it was altered (although this is a lesser problem), it is the problem of the data diverging and NOT agreeing with recorded temps which causes the problem. If we cannot correlate rings to temps from 1960 onward, who is to say that the data from tree rings before recording temps is accurate? More research would need to be done to choose a course of action.

 

[feralkid]

it's no surprise. and more to come. You have to realize the people pushing this are nothing more then political hacks in white coats masquerading as scientists funded by a political agenda with tax payer money. They will do anything up to and including fraud to promote the agenda all under the guise of science.

You have quite the imagination.

 

[fskimospy]

You keep running out this canard. Do you see the logic error in it? "...(N)one of us are climate scientists." and "... the opinion of pretty much every scientific organization on the planet." Per your argument, the opinion of every scientific organization (which is a false premise anyway) is not a valid opinion because... they are not climate scientist. And real scientist DO have a problem with the methods, but are unable to demonstrate them clearly because the 'real' climate scientist are not following real scientific method and publishing.

That's ridiculous. Not only does 'pretty much every scientific organization on the planet' include quite a large number of climate scientists, but the organizations themselves are familiar with many of the research methods used and how to evaluate their data effectively... unlike everyone on this board and the bloggers. Oh, and if it's a false premise by all means tell me what percentage (ballpark) of recognized scientific organizations do not accept global warming. Be sure to give specific examples. (while there are probably one or two, I can't think of any)

Basically in your post here you're arguing that if I take the unreasonable step to require actual knowledge of a subject before you speak on it then we can never know anything because all the scientists in the world are unqualified or corrupt. This is again, ridiculous. It is only because AGW has become politicized that people have decided to apply the common view of politics on it, basically meaning that now people who have no idea what they are talking about feel qualified to give their opinion and have it viewed as valid.

If it were any subject other than global warming (or evolution I guess), this wouldn't even be debated. I guess that's what happens when you have a whole host of multibillion dollar business interests trying to push an agenda.

 

[Pens1566]

So, no comment on AP's research of "climategate"?

 

[Blackjack200]

So, no comment on AP's research of "climategate"?

Good editorital in the LA Times:

The impact of this autonomic red - blue division often is amplified by the fact that we Americans are, by and large, technologically advanced but scientifically illiterate. Our national conversation is dominated by a culture of assertion rather than a respect for evidence reasonably assessed. Thus the endless wrangling over self-evident nonsense like creationism. It's precisely the insistence on treating a scientific theory, evolution, and an allegorical notion, creationism, with a faux evenhandedness that creates a situation in which 75% of Americans believe most scientists disagree over global warming.

In fact, the scientific consensus on the issue is broad and deep. Nor does it rely on science done at the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten12-2009dec12,0,2096153.column

 

[gsellis]

If it were any subject other than global warming (or evolution I guess), this wouldn't even be debated. I guess that's what happens when you have a whole host of multibillion dollar business interests trying to push an agenda.

It is because folks think that those of us that see real problems with this are treating it like religion. Therein lies the problem. This is not a religious argument, but somebody appointed Al Gore as pope and it sure was not those of us that see the flaws in the experiment. Or I should say, the parts that we are allowed to see.

 

[monovillage]

In the AP story advocacy journalism met advocacy science. AP reporter Seth Borenstein who was an author of at least one one of the leaked e-mails and recipient of others was charged by AP to investigate himself in that story. Guess what ? He found that there was nothing to see here so move along. Can you say "conflict of interest" ?

 

[jonks]

Two quotes seem to articulate my position.

"I can't say that I really have any sophisticated understanding of the science of climate change. I don't think that most people I know who are pro-cap and trade do either. For me, the fact that the vast majority of people with specialized knowledge in the field think there's a problem is good enough for me.

Put baldly like that, perhaps it suggests a certain incuriousness. But I can't be knowledgeable about everything. And I'm comfortable with the modern system in which the opinions of really knowledgeable people with expertise counts more in cases like this than people who know nothing at all." Josh Marshall, TPM

While I get the overall picture, greenhouse gases, etc, I'm not a scientist and frankly don't understand the technical minutae of the global warming debate, so I rely on the prevailing experts in the fields, and accredited organizations comprised of those experts.

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on the IPCC conclusions regarding the strong likelihood of human contributions to global warming, specifically with regard to C02 emissions. I think that's pretty relevant. That almost all opposition research seems to have been funded by big business, and specifically energy companies, is also pretty telling.

"I’m a global-warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can’t be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats." Charles Krauthammer

I place a bit more emphasis on the first part of this quote, that being an intuitive awareness that the byproduct of heavy industrialization pumping hundreds of millions of tons of gas into the atmosphere isn't likely to have zero effect. And while I shy away from extreme ELE scenarios, I'm very turned off that those combatting affecting change now to prevent deleterious global effects seem to do so entirely based on short term bottom line thinking, and their initial disingenous response to the warnings that were raised call their motives into question. First they denied any climate change was occuring at all. Then they admitted it was occuring, but said man wasn't causing any of it. Then some admit human industry may affect the climate but we should merely adapt to the change, and some say it's too late anyway or that we can't change anything even if we tried. Kicking and screaming the whole way. It took the tobacco industry a century to come around to admit the truth about their products, but I'm not sure we have the luxury of waiting another 100 years for positive change to take place.

 

[Robor]

It is because folks think that those of us that see real problems with this are treating it like religion. Therein lies the problem. This is not a religious argument, but somebody appointed Al Gore as pope and it sure was not those of us that see the flaws in the experiment. Or I should say, the parts that we are allowed to see.

BS... The only people applying religion to GW are the same people who kept trying to tag the messiah label on Obama. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[jonks]

Just from this story factcheck.org said "An article from the conservative-leaning Canada Free Press" Why do they only identify conservative newspapers as having a tilt while in other stories on their site they don't identify the Village Voice as left-leaning?

The Canada Free Press is self described as conservative. Have you ever even been to their website? http://www.canadafreepress.com/ They are unabashedly partisan, unlike a normal newspaper. They have a countdown until Obama leaves office on their front page. Factcheck.org would have been acting in an irresponsible manner to NOT list their partisan nature. I am unaware of a comparable publication of such an overtly partisan nature that Factcheck did not identify as such. So no, your first point is ridiculous.

And just to put this to bed and show mono's arguments as the blackhole they are, here's a couple quotes from a recent factcheck article:

http://factcheck.org/2009/11/health-care-and-the-economy/
Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the liberal Urban Institute, told FactCheck.org that the legislation can help small businesses that want to provide coverage but don’t because of the cost.

A study commissioned for the liberal Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for America’s Future agreed with her analysis, and predicted job gains.

****

FC almost always identifies the political ideology of a group if its findings are germane to the issue they are opining on.

 

[werepossum]

BS... The only people applying religion to GW are the same people who kept trying to tag the messiah label on Obama. Coincidence? I think not.

His comment was not about believers applying religion to CAGW but rather treating it as a religion. Thou shalt not attack the credibility of the priests (climatologists on the approved side of the debate) even when their projections are wrong and they are caught in blatant fraud. Most Catholics will not defend a priest convicted (or even accused) of child molestation, for instance, yet most CAGW believers scream hysterically any time anyone points out any deficiencies or dishonesty in methods or in actions, with an effective zone defense. 1) There is no problem. 2) If it seems like there is a problem, it's because you aren't smart enough or educated enough to understand the complexity of the issue. 3) If people who are qualified to understand the science think there is a problem, then it's because they are bought stooges of Big Oil. 4) If people who are qualified to understand the science and who can't be tied to Big Oil think there is a problem, then it doesn't matter anyway because the vast majority of climatologists all agree that the science is "settled" and so this (or any other) piece of research really doesn't matter.

The defense of CRU reminds me of a story told in the closing arguments of a lawyer suing an automobile company. Completely outgunned legally, he linked their defense to that of a lawyer defending a man whose goats were accused of eating his neighbor's melons. He said it went something like this: "The plaintiff never had any melons. If he did have melons, then they were not eaten. If they were eaten, then they were not eaten by goats. If they were eaten by goats, then they were not eaten by my client's goats. And if they were eaten by my client's goats, then they were clearly insane at the time."

When you put on such a shrill, layered defense, it's easy for people to see the issue as an analogy of or a substitution for your religion, or a component of it. Thus the continuous comments of this nature.