Climate warming hoax?

[Don-Sama]

Well the title should get you people interested to click on the thread hehe.

Anyhoo I'm reading the piece atm, I would like some other thoughts on this. Since I don't know anything of the subject, I will not change my mind without some other thoughts on this

Britain's Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Cli...-and-emails?cid=exrss-Climate-Change-Examiner


~Don

 

[Shaedys]

Very grave acquisitions if they are true.

 

[MRaverz]

How do we know these are legitimate emails?

 

[nemesiss]

How do we know these are legitimate emails?

not only that, also if the information hasn't been tampered with?

even if it were so that this climate warming is a hoax, i still prefer less carbon emitions.

 

[Aught3]

It seems unlikely to me that so many scientists would risk their careers to perpetuate a hoax that they don't really benefit from. Fabricating data is a very serious claim and if they would lose their credibility if they were ever found out, not to mention the overwhelming desire to prove them wrong and show that the climate is actually in good shape.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This "hoax" is almost a hoax by the global warming deniers. They've pulled emails out of context, obscured the meanings of technical jargon and industry slang, in an intentionally dishonest way. I assume "The Examiner" is some sort of right-wing rag with questionable journalistic ethics? Oh, wait... it isn't a journalistic news source at all. It is some sort of weird open blog thing that pretends to be a news source. Weird, weird, weird.

Context is important: If you heard me this weekend, talking about swiping cash to get drugs, you wouldn't know that I was talking about getting some cash out of my bank account to pick up a prescription.

 

[Nogre]

With the rampant quote mining these days, I wouldn't blame them for wanting to withhold some information. Science is suppose to get varied results, and an average is found and used. People tend to latch on to one study and say it proves everything when you need to look at all the information in order to make an accurate assessment. Most people are just too lazy.

Besides, do they seriously think that this is taking place in every single climate research laboratory? Especially since providing conclusive proof against human-caused global warming would be hailed as a great discovery. Seriously, this is just rediculous. When we start seeing a scientific consensus, fine. But showing one instance of supposedly dishonest conduct is hardly damaging to the idea of climate change.

 

[MRaverz]

It seems unlikely to me that so many scientists would risk their careers to perpetuate a hoax that they don't really benefit from. Fabricating data is a very serious claim and if they would lose their credibility if they were ever found out, not to mention the overwhelming desire to prove them wrong and show that the climate is actually in good shape.

It need not be the scientists but instead someone claiming to be the scientists.

 

[Niocan]

It seems unlikely to me that so many scientists would risk their careers to perpetuate a hoax that they don't really benefit from. Fabricating data is a very serious claim and if they would lose their credibility if they were ever found out, not to mention the overwhelming desire to prove them wrong and show that the climate is actually in good shape.

Except, it does benefit them: Grants much? And here I thought the notion of *peer-review* is sacrosanct... Yet you'll side with the ones who hid the data from others?

 

[Aught3]

Except, it does benefit them: Grants much? And here I thought the notion of *peer-review* is sacrosanct... Yet you'll side with the ones who hid the data from others?

Faking data is not going to get you many grants after you are found out, the odd scientist might try it but you're talking about a wide-scale conspiracy with many people taking part. Again it's just so unlikely especially since exposing the 'fraud' through a well done scientific study would earn you a ton of credibility in the field.

I guess I missed the part where they hid data, that sucks if it's true.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Except, it does benefit them: Grants much? And here I thought the notion of *peer-review* is sacrosanct... Yet you'll side with the ones who hid the data from others?

Faking data is not going to get you many grants after you are found out, the odd scientist might try it but you're talking about a wide-scale conspiracy with many people taking part. Again it's just so unlikely especially since exposing the 'fraud' through a well done scientific study would earn you a ton of credibility in the field.

I guess I missed the part where they hid data, that sucks if it's true.

There was a part where researchers refused to give up all of their data to denialist assholes. Of course, if the request was anything like the one I saw relating to evolutionary biology, the request may have been for hundreds of pounds of paper, costing thousands of man-hours to collect, and being the sort of unreasonable request for data that cranks and quacks make when they know full well no one would ever agree to it.

I worked in a metallurgical lab in a factory once... the amount of paperwork was staggering, and all we were doing were standard checks and some occasional R&D work. If someone had called me asking for my paperwork, I'd have told him to either:

• Hire a team to come to the site, dig through all of hundred or so banker's boxes, and make copies with their own copier.
• Go fuck himself with a rusty saw.

 

[Livemike2]

It seems unlikely to me that so many scientists would risk their careers to perpetuate a hoax that they don't really benefit from. Fabricating data is a very serious claim and if they would lose their credibility if they were ever found out, not to mention the overwhelming desire to prove them wrong and show that the climate is actually in good shape.

But they clearly do benefit from it. Hell it's basically the reason they have great careers. And how risky is it if, as alleged, all opposition is shut out of the debate? Who has actually lost anything from saying things that are wrong in favor of GW?

 

[Aught3]

But they clearly do benefit from it. Hell it's basically the reason they have great careers. And how risky is it if, as alleged, all opposition is shut out of the debate? Who has actually lost anything from saying things that are wrong in favor of GW?

They will lose when it is exposed. If these emails were more damning, with clear evidence that they faked data or were participating in a conspiracy to further their own careers then it would be all over for them. Alternatively, another scientist could actually gather their own data and show that climate change is false.

Tbh, I don't know why a scientist would waste so much time on lying about their research. Surely learning about reality is much more interesting than making up stuff as you go along. Also, if they wanted to make money then they are in the wrong game, basic science pays really badly.

 

[Niocan]

Also, if they wanted to make money then they are in the wrong game, basic science pays really badly.

Unless the field in question has been propped up by 'public interest' and government subsidies
It's a complete lie, trojened in the 'green' movement "for" the people; Research that supports this lie gets paid handsomely because of the very subsidies mentioned *because the people think it's true*.

 

[Aught3]

Unless the field in question has been propped up by 'public interest' and government subsidies

No, you're completely wrong. The money for research is in the application, not the basic science.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Unless the field in question has been propped up by 'public interest' and government subsidies

No, you're completely wrong. The money for research is in the application, not the basic science.

Yes, and you make more money by being a global warming liar/denier and working for the oil companies,than being a researcher working at a university.

 

[stratos]

I actually wanted to post the same question as the topic poster. Beyond the story he links to a new story just got released as well.

NZ's NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

I'm wonder what's going on, I've "educated" myself by watching potholer's video's on global warming, and by those stood in the presumption that climate change/global warming is real, and while sometimes exaggerated a man made or at least man contributed problem.

But now this is the second research centre that allegedly massaged their data.

Now I respect and appreciate everyone's person opinion, but does anyone actually know if real scientists have responded to these findings? (unless of course anyone of you happens to be an actual (climate) scientist which is also a possibility)

I haven't turned into a climate change denier or anything, not at all, but I find this all very odd to say the least.

 

[Aught3]

Doesn't seem to be a big story here, difficult to find coverage.

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/c...rature-data-from-multiple-sites-in-wellington

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to-smear-top-scientist/

 

[Niocan]

Yes, and you make more money by being a global warming liar/denier and working for the oil companies,than being a researcher working at a university.

AGW skeptic != global warming 'denier' (It's cooling, btw) != big oil supporter != against cleaner energy sources

Congrats on that massive fallacy though..

 

[scalyblue]

Scientific American[/url]"]Sadly for the potential fate of human civilization, rumors of the demise of climate change have been much exaggerated. The past decade recorded nine of the warmest years in recent history as well as the rapid dwindling of Arctic sea ice, surely the result of imminent global cooling if climate change contrarians are to be believed. After all, one of the most "damaging" emails in question from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., is actually mourning the paucity of Earth observation systems and data in the past decade, such as satellites (gutted by a lack of funding and launch miscues in recent years) to monitor climate change in the midst of natural variability.

...

There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy. It just happens to be one launched by the fossil fuel industry to obscure the truth about climate change and delay any action. And this release of emails right before the Copenhagen conference is just another salvo,and a highly effective one,in that public relations battle, redolent with the scent of the same flaks and hacks who brought you "smoking isn't dangerous."

As physicist and climate historian Spencer Weart told The Washington Post: "It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers." Well, probably they did, but point taken.

Desmogblog[/url]"]Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.

Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis[/url]"]The most significant recent climate change findings are:

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present,day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2oC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2oC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190C per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as, 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds ("tipping points") increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society, with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases, need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.