Science Scandal on Global Warming(spam on topic)

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:32 am

This is fairly fresh off the press. Someone hacked into a Climate research institute in the UK. seems there have been some shenanigans in the global warming camp including falsifying data and suppressing professional dissent, full article here Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

I have been wavering back and forth on this issue for years. For the past couple I have been suspecting something was fishy about the whole consensus claims. To see some of my most vitriolic fears confirmed is upsetting. I am not claiming the debate is over, but the research needs to be reassessed seeing as much of the uncorrupted data from the 80s was discarded. Let's keep it clean OK?

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:37 am

1079 emails and 72 documents? That is quite the research project. One hacker just ended up stumbling on the conclusion buried in that mess? I'll just go ahead and assume more people were involved in this.

I will say this much: information is a tool as well as a medium. Welcome to the 21st century. Those masses that consume information mindlessly are the real culprits, whether they believe global warming is a hoax or not. I will await some kind of court ruling before I start pointing fingers because of what one, very questionable source tells me.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:41 am

You can read more about it here and here.

I definitely wouldn't rush to judgement on what a known sceptic and serial conspiracy theorist has to say on the subject in the Torygraph.

Sadly there will be people on both sides of the fence who will 'touch up' their papers to support their arguments, and Delingpole is one of them, 'Pot ... Kettle ... Black' springs to mind.

Despite what the increasingly desperate petro-chemical companies and their payed mouthpieces are churning out, the forecasts continue to be proven right. Icefields are shrinking at an alarming rate, glaciers, even those high in the Himalayas are melting, seal levels are rising, and weather patterns are getting more and more erratic and extreme. All the evidence is in line with what the Global Warming theorists have been predicting, sadly the evidence will continue to mount, because too many people with vested interests in not doing anything about it only care about themselves. Global warming won't affect the rich oil barons of course, when their beach villas sink beneath the waves they'll simply buy new ones further up the beach. As ever it'll be the poor and disadvantaged who have no choice where to live that will pay the price.

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:42 am

It IS interesting though that the emails were confirmed as true by the climate scientists. They just said they were out of context. link here, should have included in my first post, sorry.

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frankly the out of context explanation does not wash IMHO.

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:17 am

I came across this, 'Climategate' scandal some time ago at [url="http://www.dailytech.com/Climategate+Stunning+Deception+and+Misconduct+at+UK+Warming+Research+Center+Revealed/article16889.htm"]DailyTech[/url]. Pretty amazing how low people will stoop just to push their agenda forward, especially Global Warming.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:36 am

DesR85 wrote:I came across this, 'Climategate' scandal some time ago at DailyTech. Pretty amazing how low people will stoop just to push their agenda forward, especially Global Warming.

Why should that surprise you? At stake is a very emotive issue. People who believe they have knowledge of the truth are often willing to go above and beyond the facts to make their points, and gain support. It's even worse when you have plenty of evidence but find that the those with a large financial stake in the other side don't even have to prove anything: they can just outspend you 100-fold, make up stuff as they go along, and push emotional buttons. I can easily imagine how tempting it must have seemed to a few people to use some of the naysayers' techniques to distort some content and make statistics show what it shouldn't.

But to assume that all the evidence and all the scientists involved in showing how bad global warming lied, makes no sense at all. Especially since the head cheerleaders for the "no global warming" side are making stuff up about Climategate.

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:57 am

fable wrote:Why should that surprise you? At stake is a very emotive issue. People who believe they have knowledge of the truth are often willing to go above and beyond the facts to make their points, and gain support. It's even worse when you have plenty of evidence but find that the those with a large financial stake in the other side don't even have to prove anything: they can just outspend you 100-fold, make up stuff as they go along, and push emotional buttons. I can easily imagine how tempting it must have seemed to a few people to use some of the naysayers' techniques to distort some content and make statistics show what it shouldn't.

But to assume that all the evidence and all the scientists involved in showing how bad global warming lied, makes no sense at all. Especially since the head cheerleaders for the "no global warming" side are making stuff up about Climategate.

Nice find thank you, i was looking for something like that before I started the thread, I instead had to settle for a non Fox news source of the original issue.

regretfully this article did not address the fact that the raw data from the 80s upon which the entire climate model was based has been ...ahem lost. I have seen a couple articles give a rather sheepish apology for that. Science is reproducible and the very data upon which the climate model could be reassess has been lost.

The issue of following the money on this kind of research is tricky and of course should be followed by a critical eye. But I doubt there is any funding source more stable right now than saying "I want to study climate change!"

The credibility of the vast majority of skeptics is in doubt, I agree, but now it is far harder for an outside party to review the original result, frankly that is scary as we laymen have to go by what the experts say and one group of these experts have lost the most important part of their original data.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:32 pm

So the scientists were dishonest and resorted to tactics that their detractors had been using for years. Falsifying/ignoring data? Silencing dissent? Par for the course as far as climate change denial goes.

"Climategate" hasn't shaken my belief that we're worsening the planet through carbon emissions and other pollution. When you're faced with politicians, bureaucrats, and many interests that have vast access to money and for whom cutting carbon emissions is incredibly costly, it's little wonder that they'll resort to dishonest tactics to try and further their point.

I'm not defending them in any way, I'm just saying...this topic has far more to do about proper scientific methodology and argument than about climate change. The world is getting warmer, our industry plays a large role in that warming. It's been fairly well proven, by an amount of sources that dwarfs whatever studies this affects.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:48 am

I entirely agree with you Nightmare.
The problem is.. as the cliche goes, "With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

Scientists such as these unfortunately provide the naysayers with ammunition, and given how stubborn much of the population still is when it comes to accepting that climate change *is* happening... we really don't need this sort of thing...

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:54 am

To be frank - I don't care whether global warming is man-made, man-helped or completely natural. It exists, clearly. And it poses a danger to us all, well not to me, cause I'll hopefully be dead before hand, but well - you get the point.

We're at a unique point in history that we can do something about it. Whether it is mad-made or not it is a danger which needs to be dealt with.

So to be frank - I don't care what some e-mails in such a problem like this say. The global situation has not changed because of it.

Of all the possible scenarios with which we can deal with Global Warming only one choice makes any sort of logical sense, and that is trying to deal with it. Other choices might make sense from a short-term economical aspect (and do notice the short-term) or a political ideologistic viewpoint or similar, but those are rarely logical, but driven by subjective motivation.

If it was a giant meteor heading towards earth and would most likely kill off the planet, I wonder how many would object to try and counter the problem - even though the meteor isn't man-made......

Pekka · Post by **Pekka** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:43 am

What can I say? Go-go Russian hackers, last "robin hoods" of the post-industrial era

More on topic: there was a financial aspect involved, as far as I understand, Scientistsc were concealing\exagerating data in order to get their funding. 'Tis only human, is it not? :

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:25 am

there was a financial aspect involved, as far as I understand, Scientistsc were concealing\exagerating data in order to get their funding

Are you talking about the UEA or US Universities? It isn't the norm in the UK for universities to be funded as much by private enterprise as it is in the US, but I guess it could happen. What has been noticeable over the years is that most college scientists in the US who are on the anti-global warming team are almost 100% employed by petro-chemical companies, or work for universities that are heavilly funded by them. So that shoe fits both feet so to speak, which makes sorting the wheat from the chaff even harder for us unfortunately.

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:21 am

Xandax wrote:snip
If it was a giant meteor heading towards earth and would most likely kill off the planet, I wonder how many would object to try and counter the problem - even though the meteor isn't man-made......

Analogy can flawed with the best of examples and intent. This is a poor one at best. the climate change skeptics believe that there is minimal human impact on the weather either way. Any action we could take will be for naught.

A meteor coming to impact the Earth(which may actually happen around 20 years from now) is an immediate threat that would be reacted to. I want to see alternative energy if only because I would rather not freeze in the dark after the fossil fuels are used up, but when you follow the money Al Gore and company are very well positioned to make a killing on the new economy they espouse.

When it comes right down to it, I do not trust the scientists, and events like this further undermine that trust.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:29 am

jklinders wrote:Analogy can flawed with the best of examples and intent. This is a poor one at best. the climate change skeptics believe that there is minimal human impact on the weather either way. Any action we could take will be for naught.

A meteor coming to impact the Earth(which may actually happen around 20 years from now) is an immediate threat that would be reacted to. I want to see alternative energy if only because I would rather not freeze in the dark after the fossil fuels are used up, but when you follow the money Al Gore and company are very well positioned to make a killing on the new economy they espouse.

When it comes right down to it, I do not trust the scientists, and events like this further undermine that trust.

And people can believe a metor won't strike us. Beliefs are always flawed. The only thing we logically should hang our hat on is "science", trustworthy or not.

The Z · Post by **The Z** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:22 am

jklinders wrote:Analogy can flawed with the best of examples and intent. This is a poor one at best. the climate change skeptics believe that there is minimal human impact on the weather either way. Any action we could take will be for naught.

A meteor coming to impact the Earth(which may actually happen around 20 years from now) is an immediate threat that would be reacted to. I want to see alternative energy if only because I would rather not freeze in the dark after the fossil fuels are used up, but when you follow the money Al Gore and company are very well positioned to make a killing on the new economy they espouse.

When it comes right down to it, I do not trust the scientists, and events like this further undermine that trust.

If any action we take will be for naught then it's possible we may be in a bit of hot water before the meteor comes to Earth. As Xandax has said, man-made or not, there are some issues that have arisen and that do affect our way of living. It is also debatable whether humans have anything that could make a difference against a meteor impact, so either way if someone stands to make a financial killing or not, it is probably in most people's best interests to try and preserve what they can even if it may ultimately mean nothing.

Also, quoting Xan, trustworthy or not, science may provide the only means to combat these threats.

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:03 am

Xandax wrote:And people can believe a metor won't strike us. Beliefs are always flawed. The only thing we logically should hang our hat on is "science", trustworthy or not.

Much better said, my only aim here was to stir debate. I don't necessarily believe climate change is a hoax, but I do believe these so called scientists have done a lot of damage to their credibility. the lower their credibility the less likely people are going to listen to them. To borrow your analogy, if one of these turkeys were to come up 10 years from now and say a meteor was going to hit us, people will be less likely to believe partly because of this.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 6:31 am

I find it strange anybody can "doubt" the existence of climate change.
The only questions which as far as I can see logically can exists are "man made/man helped or natural" and "can we do anything about it, or are we doomed".
And both of those are purely ideological in my book.

Regardless of whether it is "our fault or not" - we at least should try to do something about it regardless of whether "it matters" or not, simply by the off-chance that it actually does matter.

That's where the meteor analogy comes into play. We might not be able to save ourselves, but we sure as heck should try now we have the technological and intellectual level for it.

And then it doesn't matter much that some "scientists" were using underhanded techniques to try and counter the underhanded techniques of the opponents. So trusthworthy or not.... we have few logical choices to hang our hat on.
And when one is "faith" that nothing will happen, then I must admit I'm firmly in the realistic trench myself where means can justify goals.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:36 am

Another chapter in the ongoing debate.

Surprise, surprise, the Saudis are trying to use the existence of a couple of e-mails (taken out of context) to scupper the UN climate summit in Kobenhavn, not of course that they have a vested interest in the matter!

Amazing coincidence that the story should have been broken in the weeks leading up to the summit isn't it?

jklinders · Post by **jklinders** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:56 pm

galraen wrote:Another chapter in the ongoing debate.

Surprise, surprise, the Saudis are trying to use the existence of a couple of e-mails (taken out of context) to scupper the UN climate summit in Kobenhavn, not of course that they have a vested interest in the matter! Amazing coincidence that the story should have been broken in the weeks leading up to the summit isn't it?

I think most intelligent people will safely ignore the Saudi's due to their quite obvious vested interests. After all were these not the same folks who wanted to bill us for NOT using fossil fuels? Far as I know OPEC does not swing enough votes to really impact things too much at all.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:04 pm

jklinders wrote:I think most intelligent people will safely ignore the Saudi's due to their quite obvious vested interests. After all were these not the same folks who wanted to bill us for NOT using fossil fuels? Far as I know OPEC does not swing enough votes to really impact things too much at all.

But they recognize that the industries who have their own bias share a synergistic support. As long as they all heap false numbers and complaints on climate change, many people without the focus, energy, or logical tools to discern otherwise will simply respond, "Golly, if all those different sources complain about this, there must be something to it!" One snakeoil salesperson offering swampland is easier for them to discount than 100 snakeoil salespersons all saying the same thing.