Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[spidey07]

Looks like some ballsy Senators want to see the CRU investigated on how they could have gotten away with the deception.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...r-hearing-into-cru-un-climate-change-research
Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research

In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."

"[T]his thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with," Inhofe, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said during the interview.

He added that it was "interesting" that the e-mails surfaced only weeks before an important climate change summit would bring world leaders to Copenhagen.

 

[CitizenKain]

who ever the "whistle blower" is may be waiting in the wings with more evidence. If Bernie Madoff can go to jail for what he did, these "scientists" and willing accomplices ,algore(al gore) should be in a cell next to Madoff.

For what reason should they be in jail? I'd be surprised to see someone defending Madoff in anything, but then again you are a rightwinger, so anything goes.

 

[OutHouse]

And then China came along. These pics are just fvcking sad:

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

yes sad sad pictures. China will be paying for the mistakes they are allowing to happen very soon. What i find funny is that china wont do anything about cleaning that mess up because all they care about is making a profit and the hell with anybody or anything that gets in the way of the profit. kinda sounds familiar doesn't it.

 

[Darwin333]

yes sad sad pictures. China will be paying for the mistakes they are allowing to happen very soon. What i find funny is that china wont do anything about cleaning that mess up because all they care about is making a profit and the hell with anybody or anything that gets in the way of the profit. kinda sounds familiar doesn't it.

Yet you are perfectly willing to enable, even encourage, it.

 

[Blackjack200]

Looks like some ballsy Senators want to see the CRU investigated on how they could have gotten away with the deception.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...r-hearing-into-cru-un-climate-change-research
Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research

Fuck him.

He is among the most vocal global warming skeptics in Congress.[1] Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his positions on various political issues.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

 

[alphatarget1]

yes sad sad pictures. China will be paying for the mistakes they are allowing to happen very soon. What i find funny is that china wont do anything about cleaning that mess up because all they care about is making a profit and the hell with anybody or anything that gets in the way of the profit. kinda sounds familiar doesn't it.

How can US industries compete with China when factories there don't have to spend a dime on cleaning up their mess?

 

[OutHouse]

Yet you are perfectly willing to enable, even encourage, it.

and so are you. what can we do about it? NOTHING!

 

[OutHouse]

How can US industries compete with China when factories there don't have to spend a dime on cleaning up their mess?

we cant, that is why companies that produce toxic waste for various industries have moved to mexico and china.

 

[Darwin333]

and so are you. what can we do about it? NOTHING!

You are correct that I am an enabaler right alongside you but the second half is incorrect. I purposely try to give them as little of my money as possible at great personal expense. I also constantly advocate (and I did the same under Bush) that our country not borrow money from China.

Most of my friends on the left (and the right when they where in power) have absolutely no problem with what you saw as long as their favorite project gets funded.

But please, don't change your attitude one bit. You are absolutely right, you can't do a damned thing about what your government does or what you buy. Nope, no control whatsoever.

 

[PJABBER]

For what it is worth, The Obama White House believes they are going to get a 35.5 mpg standard for your buggy by 2016 and they really, really believe they have put in "10 months of unprecedented leadership on these issues."

I think the senior Administration spokesman said this with a straight face, even as he asked for anonymity for fear of being laughed at by his friends.

Well, God supposedly made the World in seven days, so The Obama has our leave to take a bit more time. He has all the time in the world, at least until the elections in 2010.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...and_e87165d3-e99e-4ce9-babb-ff4e9c4d6005.html

'Very strong hand' - W.H. message on climate confab
By KENDRA MARR
POLITICO
11/23/09 1:37 PM

A senior administration official insisted Monday the United States will enter the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen with a "very strong hand," despite not having finalized legislation to crack down on global warming.

Since taking office, President Barack Obama has made it a top priority to address climate change, said the official, who spoke with reporters on background.

The official cited spending in the Recovery Act, through which the White House has invested more than $80 billion in clean energy, as evidence that the U.S. was making progress on climate. The Energy Department is offering $2.3 billion in tax credits for advanced energy manufacturing projects; the government has announced tough new fuel economy standards to make 35.5 mpg standard for vehicles by 2016; and climate change has fit prominent into many the president’s bilateral meetings, the official said, from G-20 to his recent trip to China.

"We’re going into Copenhagen with a very, very strong hand," said the official. "We go in with 10 months of unprecedented leadership on these issues."

Compared to the Bush administration, the Obama White House has led a quick, aggressive charge, the official argued.

"If you compare our 10 months to the prior 8 years, it’s been a very, very impressive effort," said the official.

On Dec. 10 President Obama will arrive in Oslo to accept his Nobel Prize. But it’s unclear whether he’ll go to Copenhagen himself for the two-week climate talks, which start Dec. 8.

His attendance will be decided in the next few days, said the official.

 

[Modelworks]

It wouldn't surprise me if they falsified data. Nothing would surprise me after the physicist Hendrik.

If you don't know who he was , he was a physicist who won the prize for physics in 2001, published articles in journals and had everyone swooning over him, bell labs gave him carte blanche to do what he wanted.

Then in 2002 they found out he falsified his data, none of what he said was true and some of the brightest minds in the world lowered their heads in shame after believing him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n

The 32-year-old academic, who was involved in researching nanotechnology at the prestigious Bell Labs in New Jersey, claimed he had succeeded in creating field-effect transistors out of tiny molecules that don’t ordinarily conduct electricity. These molecules, he reported, could be made to behave like semiconductors, the circuits that form the backbone of computers.

Schön’s work, published in renowned scientific journals like Science and Nature, was ground-breaking and quickly catapulted the physicist into the top tier of his field. Almost overnight he became a favored nominee for the Nobel prize.

The first experimental reports were quickly followed up by several more. Within two years time, Schön had published some 90 articles, most of them in leading scientific journals. Working under the feverish pace of the "publish or perish" climate of the scientific community, Schön quickly became a leading figure, something of a superstar among physicists.

"Breakthrough of the Year"

By 2001, Schön’s team at Bell Labs was reporting that they could turn nonconductors into semiconductors, lasers and light-absorbing devices. The implications of such breakthroughs for electronics were enormous, and there seemed to be no end to the possibilities for computing circuitry.

That same year Schön was awarded the prestigious scientific "Breakthrough of the Year" by his peers. He was set up to achieve monumental successes for the world of physics.

But then in April 2002, Schön’s star began to flicker. A small group of professors and researchers had begun taking a closer look at the wunderkind’s data. And what they noticed, didn’t quite add up to Nobel prize quality experiments. In fact, their investigations were showing that Schön manipulated his results to support his predictions: the worst possible criticism a scientist could face

 

[CitizenKain]

It wouldn't surprise me if they falsified data. Nothing would surprise me after the physicist Hendrik.

If you don't know who he was , he was a physicist who won the prize for physics in 2001, published articles in journals and had everyone swooning over him, bell labs gave him carte blanche to do what he wanted.

Then in 2002 they found out he falsified his data, none of what he said was true and some of the brightest minds in the world lowered their heads in shame after believing him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Schön

Ah yes, science as a whole failed because of one person. That's it, back to believing a book written by a bunch of sheepherders and burning people at the stake.

 

[shira]

It wouldn't surprise me if they falsified data. Nothing would surprise me after the physicist Hendrik.

If you don't know who he was , he was a physicist who won the prize for physics in 2001, published articles in journals and had everyone swooning over him, bell labs gave him carte blanche to do what he wanted.

Then in 2002 they found out he falsified his data, none of what he said was true and some of the brightest minds in the world lowered their heads in shame after believing him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Schön

And this proves what, exactly? That scientists can be lying skunks? Gee, I didn't know that.

I could cite many other examples: Remember cold fusion? Remember the Koreans' faked results on human cloning?

Even if this email "scandal" has any validity at all (which I highly doubt), it means exactly nothing about climate change. A handful (at most) of scientists in ANY major field represent a tiny fraction of the total science, and there's simply far, far too much evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change for any individual to make any difference at all.

What this tempest in a teapot is evidence of is just how desperate the climate deniers are.

 

[Modelworks]

Ah yes, science as a whole failed because of one person. That's it, back to believing a book written by a bunch of sheepherders and burning people at the stake.

''
Believing in science because it is science will only result in the same thing we accuse those who follow religion of practicing, blind obedience '' -Kerckhoff


Have you ever wondered who fact checks someones work if only a few people can even understand it ? It has happened many, many, many times throughout history. Being a scientist does not remove them from being human , with all its flaws. Things like greed, fame, and ability to deceive still apply.

 

[bfdd]

And this proves what, exactly? That scientists can be lying skunks? Gee, I didn't know that.

I could cite many other examples: Remember cold fusion? Remember the Koreans' faked results on human cloning?

Even if this email "scandal" has any validity at all (which I highly doubt), it means exactly nothing about climate change. A handful (at most) of scientists in ANY major field represent a tiny fraction of the total science, and there's simply far, far too much evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change for any individual to make any difference at all.

What this tempest in a teapot is evidence of is just how desperate the climate deniers are.

You forgot to say "amen."

 

[Modelworks]

And this proves what, exactly? That scientists can be lying skunks? Gee, I didn't know that.

It proves that it could be a scandal. People tend to assume that when a scientist says something it is true, they have done all the work, have the figures to prove it .

Even if this email "scandal" has any validity at all (which I highly doubt), it means exactly nothing about climate change.

The chances it is fake is pretty low. There are 165MB of emails, a lot for someone to fake and not mess up the conversation. There is also accounting documents showing bank transfers, grants, etc. I suppose they made that up too.

What this tempest in a teapot is evidence of is just how desperate the climate deniers are.

Truthfully I don't think anyone really knows what the hell they are talking about with climate change. I really think it is something that many scientist have found is a great revenue stream. What better way to get people to fund research than to prove or disprove to them that the world is in danger.

 

[dualsmp]

 

[Brainonska511]

The chances it is fake is pretty low. There are 165MB of emails, a lot for someone to fake and not mess up the conversation. There is also accounting documents showing bank transfers, grants, etc. I suppose they made that up too.

It isn't the validity of the e-mails that I question - I question how much of this stuff is going to be taken completely out of context?

 

[Ozoned]

And this proves what, exactly? That scientists can be lying skunks? Gee, I didn't know that.

I could cite many other examples: Remember cold fusion? Remember the Koreans' faked results on human cloning?

Even if this email "scandal" has any validity at all (which I highly doubt), it means exactly nothing about climate change. A handful (at most) of scientists in ANY major field represent a tiny fraction of the total science, and there's simply far, far too much evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change for any individual to make any difference at all.

What this tempest in a teapot is evidence of is just how desperate the climate deniers are.

Shira, I read in several different reports that mans contribution of greenhouse gases (the ones defined as pollutants) to the atmosphere is less than 1/2 of 1% of the total. Is that correct???

 

[werepossum]

Shira, I read in several different reports that mans contribution of greenhouse gases (the ones defined as pollutants) to the atmosphere is less than 1/2 of 1% of the total. Is that correct???

That number is quoted for CO2 production, but it's a wild ass guess. No one can really know how much CO2 is produced, the Earth is far too large and complicated, and most of it is reabsorbed quickly in photosynthesis, but 0.2% to 0.35% is a common guess (which is not the same as an accurate guess - I've also seen as high as 5%, which is absurd.) But you're assuming Mother Nature doesn't know which CO2 molecules come from man. She knows, man. She knows. And she's pissed. So She refuses to let Her creations use manmade CO2, which is why it's accumulating in the atmosphere and threatens to burn us all up. Mother nature: This time it's personal. And She's not backing down until we sacrifice our air conditioners and automobiles to Her.

Here's an interesting article by Dr. Roy Spencer, not about percentages generated (which is really, really difficult to determine) but about percentages of accumulation (which is also hard to determine, but not nearly as much so because of the degradation of C13 markers.) http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade…or-natural/

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

TLC - you sound like a smart guy sometimes, so I'm going to assume you know what a variable is.

Yes, we get your stance - the earth has been through much worse, blah blah blah.

That said - can you really not see the difference here, with a new variable in the equation - IE 5 Billion plus people and the modernized industry that goes with it?

These are not things the earth has dealt with before - and there is no magic power of the earth's climate to automatically clean the mess up.


As for this hack - damning evidence - really? Damning? I'll leave the comments on this to someone a lot smarter than me - read a good response to all of this here

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

Why the diversion here? I'm not advocating dumping pollutants into rivers or not properly disposing of hazardous chemicals. That's an entirely different issue. My response has to do with the AGW crowd who are trying their damndest to insist that CO2 is the big bogeyman that will be man's downfall and devastate the Earth in the process.

 

[bfdd]

TLC, I know what you're saying. You say you're not sure or you don't agree with AGW and all of a sudden you're in support for polluting our water sources and dumping hazardous material onto play grounds. Look we SHOULD try to be cleaner and we need to work towards clean energy, but that doesn't mean we should be doing things so drastically and hurt ourselves along the way.

 

[Atreus21]

How can US industries compete with China when factories there don't have to spend a dime on cleaning up their mess?

Easy. Stop buying their goods.

We have a comparative advantage in making things in a clean manner.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Fuck him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

Yeah .... Inhofe is a marroon (no offense, Okies)

Why the diversion here? I'm not advocating dumping pollutants into rivers or not properly disposing of hazardous chemicals. That's an entirely different issue. My response has to do with the AGW crowd who are trying their damndest to insist that CO2 is the big bogeyman that will be man's downfall and devastate the Earth in the process.

One issue that has risen, Chickie, is that the levels of airborne pollutants in the atmosphere are masking the effects of rising CO2 levels.

So reducing particulate pollution may actually exacerbate the problem.

What I see as the over-riding issue in all of this is how the Cons are making this a partisan issue. This is just another in a series of weekly 'gotcha' threads that in no way relate to a reasonable discussion of the over-whelming body of scientific work.

And it's always the same ol' tired arguments from the right we have heard for nearly 40 years since the formation of the EPA and the adoption of the Clean Air Act.

Two things: The emissions trading provisions allowed in the 1990 legislation has been an unqualified success to date; and the SCOTUS has agreed the EPA is authorized to regulate CO2.

Are the current 'cap and trade' proposals the answer? I don't know ---

But one thing I do know: The same ol' tired arguments, lame threads and hyperbole from the right just plain Suck. If you don't want to be a partner in addressing the issues before our nation, just get the Hell out of the way and let the adults govern for a change.

-
-
-

 

[Mxylplyx]

http://www.youtube.com/homeproject

They just present the environmental destruction

You should be able to make an unbiased conclusion that we are fucking up this earth at undeniably rapid pace. We are destroying things that can never be undone.

I fully agree that mankind is ravaging the earth at an unsustainable pace. I do however think that environmentalists took it too far by trying to pump up the CO2 bandwagon. I believe environmentalists have hitched onto the CO2 MMGW train because they believe the ends justify the means, and they very well might. It still doesnt get around the fact that the cause and the "science" that supports it is based on fabrications, manipulations, and lies.