Climategate. Huge scandal unfolding

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by needthephone, Nov 23, 2009.

  1. needthephone macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    sydney
    #1
    I have been thinking for a while now how it has somehow become generally accepted that carbon dioxide is evil and responsible for global warming. Most people I speak to share my sceptisism ( 60% of the uk population don't buy it either)

    Well it looks like this thing has been exposed as the huge con everyone suspects it to be. It has become a self fulfilling industry and 100's of thousands of peoples livlihoods are now depending on promoting the whole carbon is evil sham. When so much vested interest is involved all independant research goes out of the window.

    Somone has hacked into the leading uk climate change institute and exposed 1000's of emails which show the appauling scam this has become. Basically trying to cook the books to exagerrate global warming rates.

    Honestly this is scandalous

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
     
  2. scottness macrumors 65816

    scottness

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Location:
    Room 101
  3. NewMacGirl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    #3
    Many scientists actually think we are going to go through a cooling in the next few years because of decreased sun spot activity.

    This global warming thing has become an industry which is making people lots of money. I agree it's no longer an indepedant debate as there is so much self interest in actually hoping co2 is responsible for global warming.

    How come that last month it was the coldest on record in several US states and the third coldest ever over the whole country?
    Why because this global warming thing is as the OP says a sham.
    http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/3490
     
  4. designgeek macrumors 65816

    designgeek

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Location:
    "Town"
    #4
    Coming in below the Maunder Minimum would be great and buy us some time if it actually happens.

    Yeah you're totally right, if it actually worked that way. Global warming does not add a two or three degree curve to the average tempuratures, it causes planet wide climate patterns to change. There will be bigger hurricanes, colder winters, drier summers and all kinds of fun. Please do some objective research next time.
     
  5. NewMacGirl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    #5
    Rubbish! See how any who dares go against this blindingly accepted wisdom is seen as an idiot?

    You do some objective research and not cherry pick data points and ignore any which don't show a relentless warming or change in sea level.

    This will be seen As the biggest scandal of the century.
     
  6. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #6
    I don't know what I think of this. I think they're very foolish for trying to skew the facts and numbers but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Perhaps it's so important they over-dramatized it to get people's attention and get the ball rolling before it's too late. I don't know nor do I condone lying but I'm not ready to throw caution to the wind just yet.
     
  7. ntrigue macrumors 68040

    ntrigue

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    #7
    designgeek is right on. The thread is discussing a self-fulfilling prophecy that many of us have been wary to drink the Kool-Aid. Al Gore's film watched like a presidential race but he chose an ideal venue (Global Warming) to garner interest in himself.
     
  8. AppleMatt macrumors 68000

    AppleMatt

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    +1

    Most scientists have stopped referring to it as 'global warming' a long time ago, that was a media thing. It's now referred to as 'climate change', because some places get hotter others colder, some get wetter others dryer etc etc.

    AppleMatt
     
  9. needthephone thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    sydney
    #9
    This quotes some of the leaked material. However you look at it there is something on the nose about this.

    Start of quoted passage

    No matter which side of the fence you sit on when it comes to the idea of man-made climate change, the contents of the emails should be disturbing. But what perhaps is more disturbing is the defense put up in response to the leaked emails, because as spin goes it completely fails.

    The general line, repeated across the mainstream media (often without challenge) and by those involved is that “the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas” or as Michael Mann claims, skeptics are “taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious.”

    The main focus of the defense has been on the interpretation of an email from Professor Phil Jones where he claims of using a ‘“trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. The defense argues that the term “trick” is not suggestive of anything untoward, but is a scientific related term that is standard practice in cleaning up data.

    I seek to claim nothing on that contention, because I simply don’t know. However, which parts of the attempt to delete public data possibly subject to a Freedom of Information request is open to interpretation or lacks context?

    Phil Jones

    Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

    Phil Jones again

    The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! … The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
    PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

    More Phil Jones, where he at least considered that deleting emails could be wrong:

    Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!

    Or how about telling the truth? How is this different in context?

    Michael Mann

    Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ‘06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

    Or what about the issue of global temperatures cooling in the last decade, a point that many statistics show but is likewise denied by these scientists? What’s the context here?

    Kevin Trenberth

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

    Mick Kelly

    Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

    If you support the idea of man-made global warming, you should support a proper inquiry into the contents of these emails because there’s no wrong interpretation on points where scientists collude to delete information, or state that the truth is irrelevant to their science.

    The spin so far epically fails, and without a proper inquiry these emails are a serious scandal that undermines the science being pushed that backs the idea of man-made global warming.

    Related posts:

    The Spin Fails Here: Day One At #Media140 Sydney
    Ravens may switch to 4-3 defense
    Report Finds Defense Department Paid Millions To Incorrect Accounts
    Siemens Medical Raided by Defense Department Investigators
    English Scientests Claim Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Will Cause New Ice Age
     
  10. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #10
    He's no Bob Woodward and this isn't his Watergate moment…

    Oh wow! So there's like no problem?
    :rolleyes:

    *sigh*
    James Delingpole…

    The author of
    "WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK"

    Link…
    Let's just say that he and Tesselator's Lord Christopher Monckton have much to natter about…

    Link…

    And yes, as AppleMatt points out Global Warming is misleading. Try Climate change… have a look out your windows in a few years time.
    Get back to us then…
     
  11. NewMacGirl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    #11
    Maybe the earth is warming but it probably has nothing to do with co2 which is a particulaly useless green house gas compared to say water vapour.

    It is likely to be a natural cycle. If you read the leaked emails they actually admit the temperature trend has recently been going down so they decide to ommit this data so it always shows a temp increase.

    My father was a research scientist for a uk govt run research station (an Emeritus Professor and Fellow of the Royal Society) and he is incredulous about the standards of this so called science and the huge damage it has done to UK Science in general.

    You NEVER cook data or perform tricks to manipulate data to suit your own ends. You perform various statistical methods to show exactly what is happening, not arbitarily choose to admit data which is not suiting your pre conceived outcome. These scientists are doing us all an injustice as what is really happening is not being revealed, what if we are approaching a serious fall in global temperatures?

    He says that it was obvious more and more grants were being given into research confirming global warming. So naturally science departments short of cash will chase these lucrative grants and so the whole thing rolls allong and self perpetuates. He saw this coming and was glad he retired.
     
  12. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #12
    This is a good post. Fact is that climate change science involves many thousands of scientists over many scientific disciplines. A few bad eggs whilst terrible for public opinion by no means degrades the whole field. If there is evidence that there has been fabricated data published or data destroyed by any individual they deserve to be punished severely and hung out to dry.There wouldn't be a single scientist that would disagree with this.

    I have seen some emails that suggest this but as far as I can tell there is no evidence that this has occurred yet. It is far too early to be making wild claims of systematic fraud and most certainly an erroneous conclusion to say that emails from a few individuals from a single institution brings down the entire scientific field. It's analogous to attacking a single scientific study when the theory is based on tens of thousands of data points.
     
  13. NewMacGirl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    #13
    The point is that this unit are hugely influential throughout the world in this field.

    I would bet this type of fraud is going on in other research units throughout the world to feed the 'accepted' view.

    Any scientist who dares reveal any differing evidence is castigated and will ruin himself. So any one with some commensense And no back bone will keep pedalling the same stuff.

    Sorry I've never brought it as I personally see no evidence of it.
     
  14. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #14
    Indeed. But the scientific output of the whole unit should not be tarnished if it passes that individual scientists were dishonest and fabricated data. The papers should be judged on the basis of their individual scientifc merits not thrown out by association. Nor should the whole field.

    Firstly I am sure there is dodgy research going on in every field. Which is why peer review is so important as is corroboration of data by multiple independent investigators. Secondly a reminder that there is absolutely no proof of fraud yet. There are emails that may be interpreted and/or suggest as such but there is no evidence that data has been destroyed or that fraudulent data has been published. As I said if this is the case the individuals need to be punished severely. You are jumping the gun.

    This is absolutely not true. If a scientist can come up with the data that disproves an aspect of a theory it may take a while to gain traction. As I said above it also needs corroborating by independent investigators. The IPCC's conclusions were based on eligible publications, ~25% of which were counter to the consensus. Hence their conclusions were given as percetage likelihood. Despite you claims for scientists contrary or unexpected results are the absolutely most exciting.
     
  15. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #15
    Wirelessly posted (Nokia 5800 Tube XpressMusic : Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

    I don't understand. The livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people? What about the millions of livelihoods that would suffer from raising concern over a lie? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you, but what you said doesn't make much sense to me.
     
  16. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #16
    I couldn't agree more with your post. However I don't think this line of thought suits the agendas of people who may profit by denying climate change. It seems like a lot of people are a little too eager to jump up and point their fingers to fraud.
     
  17. harperjones99 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #17
    The problem in establishing truth is that all research and studies can be manipulated or interpreted with bias. Scientists have political and personal beliefs as well and kid themselves often by claiming impartiality.

    You can always find "proof" of your stance and the other side can always refute it.

    I don't think the furor is "fraud" but I do think it is overblown. It is something people of a certain belief system WANT to be true because then they can say "see? we are killing the environment". It fits neatly into their political dogma so of course they "believe" it and support the "evidence" that supports it. Not surprising.
     
  18. chaosbunny macrumors 68000

    chaosbunny

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    down to earth, far away from any clouds
    #18
    Personally I doubt this whole CO2 global warming thing - but it's not like there are no other environmental problems . Regardless, these planned new CO2 taxes for everyone that will just go into the pockets of multinational companies like everything else will solve nothing. Maybe releasing/improving these electro cars and focusing on geothermal power plants etc. would. But most certainly neither Obama nor any other of our marionette polticians will do anything to mess with these multinational companies.
     
  19. Johns12 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    #19
    I'm with you 100%. We should have concerns about our environment, but the constant talking down to us about co2 (which I believe is a money grab) sidesteps the things we should be doing to better our environment.
     
  20. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #20
    These email in no way show climate change to be a "con" or disprove AGW. The derisive comments about skeptics are perhaps distasteful, but there's no crime in that. A few of the emails show there MAY have been some scientists who wanted to exaggerate data, but there's absolutely nothing here that even suggests the conclusion the OP jumps to.
     
  21. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #21
    It just shows the level of base corruption among the alleged "science" advocates behind the global warming theory bridgade... I actually thought this would be the final straw against Gore & Co. but was shocked when these alleged global warming advocates stood behind a advocacy video featuring - I kid you not - raining polar bears! Yeah... they're desperate to be sure...
     
  22. chaosbunny macrumors 68000

    chaosbunny

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    down to earth, far away from any clouds
    #22
    So, how many polar bears per hour is Al Gore killing with his big fat mansion? :D
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    Source?

    Source?

    Agreed.

    Academics don't exactly have a great reputation for social skills. So them being rude is hardly something to get too worked up about.
     
  24. floyde macrumors 6502a

    floyde

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Monterrey, México
    #24
    Ok, I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the science (and I'm sure most people here aren't either), but isn't it much more likely that those lying are the ones on the climate change denial side? I mean, aren't the big oil companies threatened by renewable and clean energy sources? Will big industries not have to invest a lot of money in order to comply with C02 regulations? Are these organisms not well represented politically?

    To me this seems much more likely than a worldwide conspiracy by evil scientists, that seems like a bad Hollywood movie plot. It's similar to creationism, I think. All it takes is for a few influential individuals/organizations to spread a little propaganda and sooner or later you've got controversy where previously there was none.
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    And, of course, you seen no prospect of "people of a certain belief system" desperately WANTING climate change to be a fraud, so they can say "see? we aren't having an effect on the environment, only God could do that". If fits neatly into their political dogma so of course they "believe" it and support the "evidence" that supports it. Not surprising.

    See, that's the problem with your line of reasoning. It applies to both sides equally. Which means we need to go to the scientific data to break the tie, and the scientific data is largely pointing in the direction of humans having an increasing effect on climate changes.
     

Share This Page