Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[Hayabusa Rider]

I suppose we could do something novel like waiting to see if this a hoax.

 

[bfdd]

I suppose we could do something novel like waiting to see if this a hoax.

Of course, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about this if it isn't a hoax. This would be quite the HUGE hoax too if it even was. Lets not forget that the CRU has also already confirmed a security breach into certain servers.

Playing the other side of the ball now, just because the CRU might of been "cooking the books" does not mean ALL AGW data is bad and we can't believe it. It just means people need to be a little more skeptical about what "scientists" are telling us.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can quite get my arms around this thread revelation.

Namely, that in the area of global warming, there is genuine science and junk science done by those manipulating the data. That junk science is certainly done by oil companies, we already know it was done by GWB&co political operatives, and now, gasp, there are a few rouge rascals on the pro global warming side that are manipulating data too.

So ipso ergo, and garhootie, it must make the junk science of oil companies and the junk science of global warming deniers true as soon as we find a few global warming advocates over stating the case

In short, we need to ignore the rouges and charlestons doing junk science and pat more attention to real scientists There are a lot more of them, they may tend to be less certain, but they tend to get ignored when charlatans and rouges act totally certain.

 

[alphatarget1]

We should continue to pollute and destroy the earth.. but at least we were anti-global warming! That will help when our species cannot survive anymore!

So instead of promoting the need for conservation of resources of energy you would rather lie to the general public and coerce with fear to achieve your end goal? That's pretty pathetic.

I genuinely believe that things can be more efficient, and we can pollute less, consume less and be more environmentally conscious. It doesn't mean that some phDs should collaborate and lie to promote that. This is why middle America hates elitist liberals and distrust them.

 

[umbrella39]

No. But we need another term like "Truther" and "Birther" that applies to the anti-science crowd.

Retards...

 

[Bitek]

This is just like how Piltdown Man totally disproved the theory of evolution.

 

[bfdd]

So instead of promoting the need for conservation of resources of energy you would rather lie to the general public and coerce with fear to achieve your end goal? That's pretty pathetic.

I genuinely believe that things can be more efficient, and we can pollute less, consume less and be more environmentally conscious. It doesn't mean that some phDs should collaborate and lie to promote that. This is why middle America hates elitist liberals and distrust them.

^ this

 

[TruePaige]

Some of you people are just dumb.

You claim the CRU had an obvious agenda while not even considering that the hackers trying to steal data from the CRU also had an obvious agenda....

Yeah, this is real unbiased data you have here...damn.

 

[bfdd]

Some of you people are just dumb.

You claim the CRU had an obvious agenda while not even considering that the hackers trying to steal data from the CRU also had an obvious agenda....

Yeah, this is real unbiased data you have here...damn.

They obviously had an agenda. Why would we bring up an obvious agenda?

 

[WHAMPOM]

The "hack" was likely an insider with a concious....perhaps a genuine scientist who didn't share the agenda at CRU. The peer review collusion is ugly as hell.

Conscience or concussion, which is it? concious??

 

[shira]

Please avoid unneccessarily antagonistic language like this. There's no need for that.

Oh, puhLEEEZE.

This is like saying I should use respectful language when I encounter a post by a member of the Intelligent Design crowd, a birther, or a Holocaust denier.

I consider climate-deniers (by which I mean non-climatolgists who claim that anthropogenic climate change is false) to be just as devoid of legitimacy, and they deserve no respect.

If you're a climatologist and you hold an anti-ACC belief based an a broad understanding of the field, that's another matter entirely.

 

[shira]

Those who are not taking things at face value all the time are not "anti-science". In fact, anti-science would be sucking in all the data without questioning it and then deriding those who do question it.

When I say "anti-science," I'm not referring to any old science. I'm referring to a strong scientific consensus. The anti-science crowd puts ideology above scientific consensus.

 

[spidey07]

When I say "anti-science," I'm not referring to any old science. I'm referring to a strong scientific consensus. The anti-science crowd puts ideology above scientific consensus.

The consensus based on what appears to be false and misleading data to further an agenda that has nothing to do with science, right? Because that's what this leaked info shows.

 

[shadow9d9]

So instead of promoting the need for conservation of resources of energy you would rather lie to the general public and coerce with fear to achieve your end goal? That's pretty pathetic.

I genuinely believe that things can be more efficient, and we can pollute less, consume less and be more environmentally conscious. It doesn't mean that some phDs should collaborate and lie to promote that. This is why middle America hates elitist liberals and distrust them.

Nope, don't put words in my mouth.

To me, it is a moot issue.. we need to stop destroying the earth, which would stop global warming anyways..

 

[shira]

Personally I lack the insight and understanding on the subject to really have an opinion about it that's worth a damn - like almost everyone else here I wager. Sure I could pick a team to cheer on, but it would just be rah-rahing; pointless.

This is exactly the point. Virtually all of us here are ignorant on this subject, so we personally are not qualified to judge. But that doesn't mean the truth of the matter is a coin flip or that "all sides" are equal. Why? Because the overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence says that man-made climate change is true.

And the only argument the naysayers can present to counter that is to claim the data is cooked. That there's a vast conspiracy of scientists trying to fool all of us. They even try to pretend that there's no consensus, but every major climate body on the planet says otherwise.

So, why would you NOT believe, unless you're driven by some non-scientific motive.

 

[PJABBER]

This is exactly the point. Virtually all of us here are ignorant on this subject, so we personally are not qualified to judge. But that doesn't mean the truth of the matter is a coin flip or that "all sides" are equal. Why? Because the overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence says that man-made climate change is true.

And the only argument the naysayers can present to counter that is to claim the data is cooked. That there's a vast conspiracy of scientists trying to fool all of us. They even try to pretend that there's no consensus, but every major climate body on the planet says otherwise.

So, why would you NOT believe, unless you're driven by some non-scientific motive.

But in your comments you judge constantly. You regularly deny contrary opinion, even when references to scientific research are proffered. You default to an ad hominem attack while claiming the evidence you choose to accept, from pure ignorance as you fully admit, somehow backs a consensus opinion of those best able to know.

Being a partisan flack on issues in scientific dispute is ludicrous. Open up your mind, this isn't all about you and your vision for a world as you would like it to be.

Next question: who in government (like Al Gore) knew about this and when did they know it?

 

[Lanyap]

nm

 

[werepossum]

This is interesting. At first I thought it was probably either a hoax, or much ado about nothing. But when I read the Guardian article, now I'm inclined to believe it. I can't imagine someone being confronted with e-mails showing him to be a fraud and a liar about arguably the most important issue of our day, which literally controls our future prosperity one way or another, and then saying "No comment". I mean they all know the mainstream press will sweep this under the rug true or false and the Believers will soon forget (just look at the NASA comments), but how could they not come out and not say the emails were fake if they were? How many of you would say "No comment" in a similar situation?

For the science - I'm always reminded of the deceleration rate of the universe's expansion. Every major scientific institution knew the universe's expansion was slowing, but lots of experiments were done to measure the rate of slowing, to know if the universe would expand forever, stop at equilibrium, or eventually begin contracting. All those experiments verified that the rate of expansion was slowing. Then the Hubble went up and proved that in fact the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate. There was no vast conspiracy, but the dirty little secret in scientific circles is that in the vast majority of experiments one more or less knows the proper answer - and one knows also that returning an answer outside conventional wisdom is a sure way to get attacked and get one's funding cut off, except for the most brilliant and secure. The vast majority of scientists aren't conspirators, they are herd animals.

I also think the claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and the associated fear-mongering and shrill cries for control of society, drown out more solid problems such as increasing acidification of the oceans. Temperature correlates poorly with CO2 and tends to lag rather than lead - but ocean acidification tracks rather linearly with CO2, and is a stress factor in measurable, repeatable, easily verifiable experiments. (Full disclosure - I was a true believer in the coming man-made ice age in the seventies.)

 

[Vic]

Link to emails?

 

[Siddhartha]

Interesting? I'd say predictable. This is counter to the agenda of the lamestream media. They only report what the administration approves of.

The climate change faithful are also avoiding this thread. It's an inconvenient thread.

Hasn't this issue been around a lot longer than "the adminstration"?

 

[PJABBER]

Link to emails?

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

Parallel discussion just before, during and after the story broke worldwide -

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2025616

 

[sandorski]

90% Probability this is a Hoax.

 

[gsellis]

90% Probability this is a Hoax.

Probability 0% according to CRU.

 

[gsellis]

This is exactly the point. Virtually all of us here are ignorant on this subject, so we personally are not qualified to judge. But that doesn't mean the truth of the matter is a coin flip or that "all sides" are equal. Why? Because the overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence says that man-made climate change is true.

And the only argument the naysayers can present to counter that is to claim the data is cooked. That there's a vast conspiracy of scientists trying to fool all of us. They even try to pretend that there's no consensus, but every major climate body on the planet says otherwise.

So, why would you NOT believe, unless you're driven by some non-scientific motive.

You speak for yourself. I was an econometrics major a long time ago. At one point in my life, I breathed statistics. The issue that McKittrick and Steve McIntyre pointed out and continue to point out is that the 'proof' is poor modeling of data, presentational bias, and as some of the letters show, intentional manipulation of the data to fit a hypothesis.

And you miss a key point of science, one simple fact is all it takes to disprove a theory. AGW is entirely based on models, which is not even science. That is why the big stink over the last decade of non-warming as it diverges from the models. And then to really mess it up, 'they' are using current deviations from the model as adjustments to the initial models to get a better fit. That is a modeling non-starter.

Your broad brush assumes that anyone that disagrees with YOU is some vulgar non-scientific, religious nut. No open mind there. You would fail in the field. My heroes were Einstein, Mendel, Teller, and the Curies. My dad worked for Einstein at Princeton as a biochemist working on thermonuclear exposed subjects. And one of my friends was friends with Teller. Maybe you should read some of Roger Pielke Jr.'s blog posts. While we disagree, he has an open mind and tries to fairly cover both sides (and gets branded a traitor by those of your religion).

 

[shira]

The consensus based on what appears to be false and misleading data to further an agenda that has nothing to do with science, right? Because that's what this leaked info shows.

You bias is showing:

1) You're assuming that this story is legitimate.

2) You're assuming - assuming there IS cooked data - that it represents a major fraction of the total evidence in support of ACC.

Somehow, I'll put my faith on the climatology community and not on ideology-driven non-climatologists.