Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[barny_100]

Convert is the source code alluded to in your post available on any of the sites carrying the hacked material?

 

Links to code stuff in various places in this post: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/23/the-code.html

[barny_100]

This Greek scientist seems to sum up what I feel about the situation and has prior knowledge of the situation: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/beware-saviors-by-demetris-koutsoyiannis/

[Wildcat]

Someone has finally found a fraud exposed in the emails:

 

David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearsona and S. Fred Singer, “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, Int. J. Climatol. (2007). Published online in Wiley InterScience (http://www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

.....

 

So, hold your high-fives and “I-told-you-sos” until you look at the data, at the information found.

 

One of the e-mails is quite explicit:

 

I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but I doubt it.

 

Fraud? Right there in front of everyone? In the climate debate?

 

In the end, the scientists in the discussion determined not to hold a press conference to announce a finding of fraud, but instead to hunker down and work on publishing datasets that would contradict the alleged fraudulent paper, and establish their case with data instead of invective and press conferences.

 

They even declined to rush to inform the public of the fraud after a lengthy series of attempts to duplicate the results with well-known, accurate methods on accepted data:

 

Bottom line: Douglass et al. claim that “In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends.” (page 6, lines 61-62). This claim is categorically wrong. In fact, based on our results, one could justifiably claim that THERE IS ONLY ONE CASE in which model T2LT and T2 trends are inconsistent with UAH and RSS results! These guys screwed up big time. [emphasis added by MFB]

 

Anthony Watts and others may be justified in asking that the scientists who wrote this fraudulent paper should be summarily dismissed, and in questioning why other scientists dallied in exposing the fraud.

 

But there is this to consider: The paper in question is a paper critical of warming hypotheses, and it was co-authored by at least a couple of the most strident critics of Al Gore, James Hansen, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

The smoking gun was used to shoot down a hasty effort to brand climate-change critics as unprofessional and wrong. The smoking gun was used to enforce the hard ethical rules of science: Don’t speak until your data allow a fair conclusion.

 

The smoking gun e-mails show correct and careful behavior by the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report, but unethical behavior by the critics whose backers, we might assume, stole the e-mails in the first place, and published them without understanding the depth of moral character demonstrated by most scientists in the conduct of their professions.

 

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/smoking-guns-in-the-clr-stolen-e-mails-a-real-tale-of-real-ethics-in-science/

 

What else do the emails reveal about the integrity of the people at CRU?

 

When no one is looking, this is what they say to one another:

 

From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: Re: hockey stick

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:25:41 -0400

Cc: tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

 

Hi Mike,

 

No problem. I am quite happy to work this stuff through in a careful way and am happy to discuss it all with you. I certainly don’t want the work to be viewed as an attack on previous work such as yours. Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.

 

Cheers,

 

Ed

 

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/purloined-cru-e-mails-on-climate-science-one-scientist-pleads-for-accuracy/

 

So not really any grounds to believe any bias from anyone except the denialists.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Over the weekend NASA's University of East Anglia has alleged hackers have "stolen and released" a bunch of scientist's emails.

 

However what makes me deeply suspicious is the complete lack of correspondence with Al Gore in these released emails. Where are all the emails showing Al Gore's involvement? Even more bizarrely there is no plotting and planning on how to raise taxes. I don't see any mention of the socialist new world order that these scientists are trying to bring about. Not once do they talk about how to best achieve wealth redistribution or world government.

 

So I have to conclude this this email release is a big con. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate leak to make these scientists look better and to try and silence skeptics who question their motives. If we are to believe the emails, the scientists don't actually think their work is in error! But we know they must realize it's all a big con, so how can these emails possibly be true?

 

I was expecting something like this:

 

From: "Michael Mann"

To: "James Hansen"

CC: "Al Gore", &WorldGovernmentDistributionList

Subject: A good idea!

Date: Mon, 21 October 2008 09:15:31

 

Hail Comrade,

 

October temperature release draws near. How about you just reuse the Sept 2008 temperatures? I figure that way it will make it the warmest October on record!

 

Al says this will be an excellent move for his stock portfolio.

 

btw I don't know what to do with all that grant money coming through my door, it is starting to fill up my front hall. I bought 5 more Ferrari's and a yacht, but it isn't reducing it much.

 

In Stalin,

 

Mike

 

That is the kind of thing I was expecting to find. Blog science and the Heartland Institute have provided plenty of discussion to lead me to believe the above kind of emails should exist.

 

But all I could find was some BS email in which they talked about OctoberGate as if it was just some error in russian data. They even had the tenacity to add in a note that skeptics wouldn't believe it was just an error. A likely story! It's clear to me that the emails are fake.

 

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/nasas-fakes-email-leak.html

 

The comments are great too

[johntimber]

it does not make sense if we focus ourselves to just one place or country on this map. we should focus on whole world. the asian countries are the one who are most affected by this phenomenan. they have recorded the rise in temperature. this is not bogus this is actually what is happening in sub continent

[Wildcat]

it does not make sense if we focus ourselves to just one place or country on this map. we should focus on whole world. the asian countries are the one who are most affected by this phenomenan. they have recorded the rise in temperature. this is not bogus this is actually what is happening in sub continent

 

Indeed a UN body is predicting up to 200 million environmental migrants in the next 40 years if the climate continues changing

 

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/NSPR-7SVC8T?OpenDocument

 

Whilst a Christian Aid study thinks it could be as many as 700 million.

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/Images/human-tide.pdf

[convert]

 

What else do the emails reveal about the integrity of the people at CRU?

 

 

 

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/purloined-cru-e-mails-on-climate-science-one-scientist-pleads-for-accuracy/

 

So not really any grounds to believe any bias from anyone except the denialists.

Getting desperate are they? A post that shows that sometimes (Possibly even most of the time) the 'scientists' at CRU are doing what we pay them to do.

 

So did Harold Shipman when he worked as a doctor, however I'm sure a few of his patients would have complaints, if he hadn't killed them.

[cgksheff]

Our very own Paul Hudson makes the headlines:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml

[convert]

Looks like the US senate is now looking into this.

 

Letter to Mr Mann.

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=d5c59cd8-b662-4d02-a67f-68e3b1b21a46

[Cyclone]

Of course Cyclone, NASA is part of a huge conspiracy.. which all started with them faking the moon landing.

 

Just a small conspiracy, amongst a number of scientists who have been manipulating evidence.

It's gradually coming out, how long will you continue to make excuses for them?