CRU hacked, all information (emails) online

[derkvanl]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

also searchable: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

Is the climate propaganda hoax or not?

 

[MRaverz]

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Greenman3610 does a lot on issues of climate change, I'd suggest you subscribe to avoid falling into traps caused by lack of knowledge.

After all, most conspiracy theories stem from simply not knowing the facts.

 

[derkvanl]

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Greenman3610 does a lot on issues of climate change, I'd suggest you subscribe to avoid falling into traps caused by lack of knowledge.

After all, most conspiracy theories stem from simply not knowing the facts.

I wasn't discussing my views on the issue, but posting the news that I read today hoping to provide others with some extra information.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html

 

[Gnug215]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

also searchable: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

Is the climate propaganda hoax or not?

I don't think it's a hoax, but clearly these researchers have become caught up in the game, and have seemingly resorted to some not-so-honest practices in order to silence the critics.

I sort of understand the reasoning behind it, but in no way do I sympathize or condone it.
The climate change skeptics have resorted to the same crap themselves, so I can see how it's tempting to do it back to them.

It's pretty sad, though, and the damage is probably pretty big. The trust has been violated, and sadly this kind of episode will cast a shadow over all climate science, and even over science as a whole.

Everyone trying to debunk climate change skeptics will be hearing about this for years to come. This will probably be the Piltdown Man of climate change science.

 

[OnkelCannabia]

-How many scientists were involved in this "conspiracy"?
-What percentage of the total amount of scientist's whose e-mail correspondence was exposed do they constitute
-Are there any E-Mails exposed that show undeniably that they tampered with evidence? (What I have seen so far could imply that they have, but I can't say more without context)
-If we can conclude that Global Warming is likely to be a hoax because some scientists might have tampered with evidence is it safe to conclude that the opposite (no AGW) has 0% chance of being true since AGW Deniers are generally a bunch of lying manipulative fucktwats who are whoring themselves out to the highest bidder?



Edit: although my last question might suggests otherwise, I am really interested in answers to my first three questions

 

[Niocan]

FOI2009.zip\FOIA\documents\RulesOfTheGame.pdf

Now why would 'trustworthy' science need a PR champaign to help disseminate their findings?
In regards to climate change itself, my bet is still solidly on the collection of 98% the mass of the solar system being the leading factor in why we're noticing change of any kind, even though this change is blatantly normal..

So, the emails just go to show how ideas can be skewed for political gain; Which is hardly a new concept..

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't think it's a hoax, but clearly these researchers have become caught up in the game, and have seemingly resorted to some not-so-honest practices in order to silence the critics.

That's not clear at all. We'll have to wait and see on that, if/when we see the emails in context. After all, unless you read the whole emails, and know the lingo and slang, we can't say whether there was any deception or not.

 

[Nogre]

As I said elsewhere on this topic, it's hard to blame them with the rampant quote mining. People so often take one study and try to use it as proof, even when the rest of the available data tells a completely different story. People also try to pretend that they're better qualified to interpret data than the scientists that actually did the study. In both cases, people are wrong and generally don't have the scientific education to understand it.

In regards to climate change itself, my bet is still solidly on the collection of 98% the mass of the solar system being the leading factor in why we're noticing change of any kind, even though this change is blatantly normal.

By that logic (more percent mass of the solar system means more importance to our climate), what's happening on Jupiter has more to do with our climate than what's actually going on here. Solar output has a lot to do with our climate, but mainstream science is well aware of the possibility and have rejected it. This video explains this issue pretty well:

 

[Niocan]

It was just a subtle hint at how blatant the issue should be [about the Sun, not size], not an observation of correlations. Besides, the alternative hypothesis (AGW) is far more political then scientific if these emails are shown to prove so.
You can attempt to justify it all you want, but AGW is more like the modern day sin-tax of the church then an attempt to help our Earth.

 

[Niocan]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810#more-7810

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

The hockey stick is fake eh

Edit: Link to an online searchable database of the leaked emails.

 

[Saukko31]

That particular email in context:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html

What do the suggestive "tricks" and "hiding the decline" mean? Is this evidence of a nefarious climate conspiracy? "Mike's Nature trick" refers to the paper Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries (Mann 1998), published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann. The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The "decline" refers to the "divergence problem". This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature.

 

[Pulsar]

The best response I've read: Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment 'thinking'.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The best response I've read: Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment 'thinking'.

That seems to be part and parcel of the thinking of these folks. It is no coincidence that the same people who deny global warming tend to be right-wing creationists. It is that same sort of "one flaw and the whole thing collapses" thing that leads them to claim that the Bible is inerrant, tax cuts are the solution to every political problem, and that because there's ongoing research in biology it means that evolution is a "theory in crisis."

I'm surprised that these same assholes didn't find a climate scientist who beat his wife or got a DUI, and claim that his moral failings means that global warming is a hoax.

 

[Nogre]

Besides, the alternative hypothesis (AGW) is far more political then scientific if these emails are shown to prove so.

And your objection to human-caused global warming isn't political? Ya, right. One misinterpretation of some leaked emails proves our entire advocacy to be just a bunch of political nonsense, while the complete lack of any reliable data proving increased solar output doesn't make your advocacy political. You make sooooo much sense. Why not go argue for creationism while you're at it? It's the exactly same strategies and the exactly same result: shoddy science for political reasons.

Deviating from the well-accepted scientific opinion is silly unless you're actually doing research to prove you're right. Science isn't dogmatic; if someone's right, their results hold up to peer review and become the newly accepted theory. Unless you think you have good evidence that you could publish in a paper, it's quite simply a better bet to go with the consensus. Of course, you seem to think that deviating from the well-accepted always makes you right. Here's a hint: it has the opposite effect, or no effect, depending on what consensus you're talking about.

 

[Niocan]

Lets see....
Political gain from natural fluctuations in the earths climate: None.
Political gain from the exaggerated claims of human induced climate instability: Total control over the peoples lives via the carbon tax scandal.

So, no, my reasons are anything but political and end up somewhere in the common sense category. Are you all actually that egotistical to think that we humans can have that massive of an effect on an entire planet we like to think we own? Interesting.. See this makes sense when you realize that the main point in question (Carbon dioxide levels) makes up a total of .04% of the atmosphere; Not to mention that carbon dioxide is being treated as a dangerous toxin when WE NEED IT TO LIVE.

Common sense is lost on this argument, so I don't expect anything from any of you..

Hurry! Communism makes up .04% of your education, and if we let these levels rise it'll be the end of everything we know because it'll expand without any natural checks within the system! :lol:

 

[Squawk]

I've done a lot of reading on this today, mate of mine told me about it this morning. After lots of careful study my conclusion is.... wait for it...


I dunno.



In isolation some of it can be excused. Actually as one offs most of it can, with a couple of exceptions. The one that really got me was the email in which one of the people involved expressed his exasperation that the measured figures didn't match the models at all. The conclusion reached as that the data must be wrong, not the model. That's about as anti-science as you can get.

The other was the reference to a request for the raw data. The words of the scientist involved were "we have 25 years invested in this, why would i give you the data so you can find problems with it"?

If that isn't an anti-science statement I don't know what is.



As for the tree rings, there is apparently a divergence in temperature and tree ring analysis since the early sixties, referred to as an anomoly. 50 years is a pretty good anomolly, on what grounds to we figure this hasn't happened before?

I'm outspoken on climate change, for years I have been trying to educate family and friends on the issue. These emails have shaken much of my conviction.

All I want is the science, true accurate and unbiased science. I don't give a shit about opinion, I want to know confidence levels based on statistical analysis from real world data.

Right at the moment I am severely skeptical of the CRU. Much of the IPCC policy is based on their findings, findings that have now taken quite a beating.

If anthropogenic climate change is a reality (and I contend it probably still is), revelations like this are going to do nothing but further the problem as they will delay action. Why oh why can't people be fucking honest.

 

[Niocan]

Because, in our current system (Used as generally as possible), disorder breeds more 'wealth' then order.
One way I know how to help any of the true outcomes is to plant more plants, grow your own food, etc. I'll keep trying to do my part, and await for the truth to be found; But if that 'truth' infringes further upon our rights... then is it really the truth?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I've done a lot of reading on this today, mate of mine told me about it this morning. After lots of careful study my conclusion is.... wait for it...


I dunno.

I don't think it is as big of a deal as all that, although the global warming deniers, who we know lie pretty much all of the time their lips are moving, are going to make a much bigger deal out of this than what it is. After all, they have a financial and philosophical stake in lying that simply isn't matched by the scientific community as a whole. I don't even see anything that looks conclusively bad in the out-of-context quotes from stolen emails, and that is the BEST that the scumbag anti-science shitheads could come up with.

If that's all they have, they really have nothing at all... of course, for those folks making shit up comes so naturally that they see their own evil in everyone else around them.

 

[Nogre]

Lets see....
Political gain from natural fluctuations in the earths climate: None.
Political gain from the exaggerated claims of human induced climate instability: Total control over the peoples lives via the carbon tax scandal.

Total control through carbon taxes? What are you talking about? This just sounds like complete and utter bull shit. There's no other way to say that.

And there are plenty of political motivations for denying human-caused climate change: maintenance of the fossil-fuel based economy, dodging of the need to spend money to reduce air pollution, keeping your inexpensive car instead of a hybrid...the political reasons are endless and they all equate to one thing: maintaining the status quo and avoiding change to our economy.

Oh, and maintaining a carnivorous diet (going vegan/vegetarian significantly reduces your carbon output), though most people ignore this little detail anyway. :roll:

Meanwhile, the political motivation for acceptance of global warming includes bussinesses in the bussiness of clean energy make money (though not anywhere near as much as fossil fuel companies make, I'd wager), scientists/engineers get more funding to develop new technology, and reducing the power of huge oil companies.

So, no, my reasons are anything but political and end up somewhere in the common sense category.

No. Common sense is useless in determining scientific knowledge. Cite a paper or you're no better than creationists claiming that the universe must have been created by god since anything else just "doesn't make sense."

Are you all actually that egotistical to think that we humans can have that massive of an effect on an entire planet we like to think we own?

Oh yes. We're so helpless, we can't destroy the planet several times over. The people who claim about our nuclear armaments are just egotistical. :facepalm:

See this makes sense when you realize that the main point in question (Carbon dioxide levels) makes up a total of .04% of the atmosphere; Not to mention that carbon dioxide is being treated as a dangerous toxin when WE NEED IT TO LIVE.

The fact that it's a very small part of our atmosphere is meaningless unless you have a climatologist backing you up, saying that this means it's not significant. Oh, and more than CO2 matters; methane is a ton more warming than CO2. And plants need CO2; we don't. But this is the CO2 we and other animals exhale naturally , not the massive ammounts of it we pour into our atmosphere. And who said anything about it being a toxin? It's a gas that traps heat in our atmosphere, and could cause climate problems if there's too much in our atmosphere. That has nothing to do with its toxicity.

Common sense is lost on this argument, so I don't expect anything from any of you..

Yup, and there's a reason common sense is lost on us. :facepalm:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Niocan MUST be a troll... he's picked "stupid" as his position on every topic he's posted to. There's no way someone could be so wrong on EVERY topic... I refuse to believe that he isn't doing it on purpose to get a rise out of people.