Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[Doc Savage Fan]

I guess some people don't mind being deceived. Go figure.

 

[gsellis]

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.

With reasoning like this, I see why you might believe unpublished methods and data. This is an "everybody knows" argument. Want to say I would bomb abortion clinics too?

 

[Modelworks]

Don't worry the spending will continue.

COPENHAGEN -- Energy Secretary Steven Chu will announce on Monday an international plan to deploy clean technology in developing countries, a $350 million, five-year effort that will include everything from putting solar lanterns in poor households to promoting advanced energy-efficient appliances worldwide, administration officials said.

It is just another $350 million we don't have, everyone to the bar the drinks are on Steven Chu and the taxpayers !

 

[werepossum]

Don't worry the spending will continue.



It is just another $350 million we don't have, everyone to the bar the drinks are on Steven Chu and the taxpayers !

I don't know, I can see $350 million over five years if I'm convinced the money is actually spent wisely - if, for instance, there is a way to provide clean light and heat to poor families otherwise cutting down the rain forest for firewood. Maximizing the bang for the buck, as it were.

On the other hand it speaks volumes that I, a small 'L' libertarian, can read about a third of a billion dollars and think "That's not so much money." And people talk about violence in media desensitizing people!

 

[DealMonkey]

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.

Charrison knows about as much about science as he does economics. Which is to say, not very much.

 

[DealMonkey]

You know, I'm curious about something: Why isn't anyone asking who this hacker is who released these emails and what his or her agenda is exactly? Who's to say the hacker didn't manipulate e-mails before exposing them, or who's to say he took things completely out of context, releasing only the email trails that somehow seemed damning to the scientists in question?

This strikes me as one of those lame conservative "gotcha" plots: you know, like the ACORN sting? Wherein they get some stupid ACORN employee to say something moronic on camera and then the entire organization gets smeared as a result.

 

[DealMonkey]

Hmmmm.... so many questions... so many crickets from the believers...

Bravo! You found another idiot who has a blog that supports your idiotic opinion! Yay for you, Cad!

Er wait, I guess the reaction you expected was more along the lines of:

Dude, bro! Whoa! Cool find! I can't believe there's another guy out there with a blog that knows more about climate science than 98% of the world's climatologists combined! Hells yeah! Let's get a case of PBR and ridicule the enviro-whacko tree-hugging libruhls while driving our 4x4 around the mudhole while flipping Obama the bird!

Woooo Wooooo! Hells yeah!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Bravo! You found another idiot who has a blog that supports your idiotic opinion! Yay for you, Cad!

Er wait, I guess the reaction you expected was more along the lines of:

Dude, bro! Whoa! Cool find! I can't believe there's another guy out there with a blog that knows more about climate science than 98% of the world's climatologists combined! Hells yeah! Let's get a case of PBR and ridicule the enviro-whacko tree-hugging libruhls while driving our 4x4 around the mudhole while flipping Obama the bird!

Woooo Wooooo! Hells yeah!

No, I never expected you or your types to actually address the issue/questions. I expected you to show your true colors and attack the messenger and attempt to duhvert the topic. While I'm disappointed you and yours chose to do that, my expectations weren't disappointed.

 

[gsellis]

You know, I'm curious about something: Why isn't anyone asking who this hacker is who released these emails and what his or her agenda is exactly? Who's to say the hacker didn't manipulate e-mails before exposing them, or who's to say he took things completely out of context, releasing only the email trails that somehow seemed damning to the scientists in question?

This strikes me as one of those lame conservative "gotcha" plots: you know, like the ACORN sting? Wherein they get some stupid ACORN employee to say something moronic on camera and then the entire organization gets smeared as a result.

A security post-mortum suggests that someone was compiling the FOIA data and it got leaked. It is too organized and complete to be a hack. The real question is if it was intentionally leaked or just put on a public (but password protected?) ftp location by accident.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You know, I'm curious about something: Why isn't anyone asking who this hacker is who released these emails and what his or her agenda is exactly? Who's to say the hacker didn't manipulate e-mails before exposing them, or who's to say he took things completely out of context, releasing only the email trails that somehow seemed damning to the scientists in question?

This strikes me as one of those lame conservative "gotcha" plots: you know, like the ACORN sting? Wherein they get some stupid ACORN employee to say something moronic on camera and then the entire organization gets smeared as a result.

Yes nancy pelosi - the "hacker" (likely someone on the inside anyway) is being looked into. Also, I do believe that the emails have been confirmed correct by those in charge.

Ah yes, forget about the actual issue - let make it about those who exposed it. That makes perfect sense....

 

[shira]

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.

Hard evidence to support this?

Oh, wait. Only climatologists have to provide conclusive proof to you that they're NOT committing fraud. You, on the other hand, are free to post the most outrageous drivel supported by nothing more than the air in your head and a 5th-percentile ability in reading comprehension.

Nice double standard you have there.

 

[shira]

lol, you believers are funny. If one had ACCURATE results then there should be no "manipulation". The intentions of the "manipulation" has no bearing on the accuracy. Again, fake(ie manipulated) but "accurate" - Dan Rather would be proud.

1) You didn't answer my demand for proof. What a surprise. Conclusion: You haven't got any. You've got empty opinions that you present as factual.

2) If manipulation isn't needed when one has "accurate data", then why did one of the leading skeptics - Patrick Michaels - recommend that temperatures collected in urban areas BE ADJUSTED DOWNWARD to account for heat-island effects?

Come on, genius, we're waiting.

 

[shira]

Well if anything this story refuses to go away. People want answers and a metric tonne of scientists are coming out saying "we knew they were doing this".

That's because morons like you refuse to go away.

As to your "metric tonne" of scientists. Let's do a little math:

1 metric ton = 2205 pounds (approximately).

Average body weight of a scientist = 175 pounds (approximately)

1 metric ton of scientists = 2205/175 = 12.6 scientists.​

But I'll give you the breakage. 13 scientists are "coming out." Wow! You've seriously shaken my confidence.

You're such a math and science retard you don't even know how to engage in good hyperbole. And you're reading emails involving scientists writing about numbers and equations and models (oh my!) and claiming to understand them? Riiiiiigggggghhhhhtttt.

 

[monovillage]

Here you go shira. On one hand you have the Urban heat island effect.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/urban-heat-island-uhie/
and you have
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

ahh pure science at it's best.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

1) You didn't answer my demand for proof. What a surprise. Conclusion: You haven't got any. You've got empty opinions that you present as factual.

2) If manipulation isn't needed when one has "accurate data", then why did one of the leading skeptics - Patrick Michaels - recommend that temperatures collected in urban areas BE ADJUSTED DOWNWARD to account for heat-island effects?

Come on, genius, we're waiting.

wow, same douche, different day...

First off - I don't have to "prove" anything. You believers are trying to claim something is real -the burden of proof is on you - not me.

Second - no where did I suggest that science couldn't adjust the data due to known issues. What you seem to miss here is that MANIPULATION came into play here - not just simple data adjustments. Manipulation by those with an agenda...or just stupid.

Again - we're waiting for this "proof" you believers keep saying is there. No, "consensus" isn't "proof" so don't even try it.

 

[charrison]

Charrison knows about as much about science as he does economics. Which is to say, not very much.

I know more about both subjects than yourself....

 

[OutHouse]

Al Gore with egg all over his face. the whole GW madness needs to end.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece


There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was hit by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former vice president, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," became entangled in a new climate change row.

Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

 

[jonks]

Al Gore with egg all over his face. the whole GW madness needs to end.

hey congrats, you solved the issue! A soundbyte by gore disproves the consensus of 95% of the world's climate scientists! Phew, now we can move on to the impending supernova conspiracy.

 

[blackangst1]

hey congrats, you solved the issue! A soundbyte by gore disproves the consensus of 95% of the world's climate scientists! Phew, now we can move on to the impending supernova conspiracy.

95% of climate scientist beleive that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

hey congrats, you solved the issue! A soundbyte by gore disproves the consensus of 95% of the world's climate scientists! Phew, now we can move on to the impending supernova conspiracy.

I'd like to see that information...please link. Thanks.

 

[OutHouse]

hey congrats, you solved the issue! A soundbyte by gore disproves the consensus of 95% of the world's climate scientists! Phew, now we can move on to the impending supernova conspiracy.

please please plese show me the proof you have that 95% of the WORLDS climate scientist say that. funny how you gloss over the scientist that said Gore is pretty much a liar.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

1) You didn't answer my demand for proof. What a surprise. Conclusion: You haven't got any. You've got empty opinions that you present as factual.

2) If manipulation isn't needed when one has "accurate data", then why did one of the leading skeptics - Patrick Michaels - recommend that temperatures collected in urban areas BE ADJUSTED DOWNWARD to account for heat-island effects?

Come on, genius, we're waiting.

1) I gave you proof the data was significantly manipulated (esp. post-1960)...did I miss something here?

2) Urban heat adjustments make sense...but wouldn't it be nice if those who do these adjustments 'share' their methodology and calculations instead of fighting FOI requests for over 2 years?

Apparently you feel that the tree ring proxy data was manipulated for a valid reason...please share your thoughts.

 

[OutHouse]

Here you go shira. On one hand you have the Urban heat island effect.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/urban-heat-island-uhie/
and you have
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

ahh pure science at it's best.

that is beyond sad.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

hey congrats, you solved the issue! A soundbyte by gore disproves the consensus of 95% of the world's climate scientists! Phew, now we can move on to the impending supernova conspiracy.

I watched a program last night called What Really Killed the Dinosaurs and I couldn't help but notice that there's quite a parallel between the "concensus" in that field and that of AGW.

The vast majority of scientists currently believe that the Chicxulub impact caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. However, there's a small group who disagree and who have uncovered quite a few valid facts that seem to show that the Chicxulub impact could not posibly have been the cause.

So who is right? Is it the vast majority, based purely on their majority concensus alone? Or could those who have found gaping holes in the Chicxulub impact theory be correct? The science isn't exactly settled. Nor are those in the minority quacks or goofball scientists because they don't go along with the mainstream beliefs. In fact, much like ACC, more scientists are slowly coming over to that small minority.

This constant appeal to the majority by the pro-ACC crowd is an argumentation fallacy in the first place. Scientists are humans and have as much propensity as anyone to jump on the train of popular belief before all of the facts are in. Assuming they MUST be correct because such a large majority buy into AGW is, well...you know what they say when people "assume".

 

[shira]

Here you go shira. On one hand you have the Urban heat island effect.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/urban-heat-island-uhie/
and you have
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

ahh pure science at it's best.

And your so-called point is what, exactly?

Those of you in the Church of Denial seem incapable of understanding that collected or derived temperatures need to be adjusted - upward OR downward - to correct for various effects, such as the heat-island effect or altitude or issues with proxy data.

And - no - it's not science at its best. It's science at its most typical.