Um, yeah, as if that's gonna work:



/hor

What a load of crap. These weren't just a few out of hundreds of scientists. These were some of the biggest dogs. AND some of the emails specifically discuss their getting wording in the IPCC report changed. AND the peer review part of their work is BS, because in fact there work was not peer reviewed since they refused to release the underlying data set.

They discussed deleting data rather than releasing it.

Suprise Surpise now it is gone.

Yet the IPCC will still use what they produced.

Weaver95: Fart_Machine:

So two guys make up the entire scientific community now.

it was far more than just two guys.

Where is the evidence of some worldwide conspiracy which is what you're alleging?

Obdicut: What did they do that was wrong, Weaver? The raw data is available from the stations, as it always was.

Oh yeah?

Climate change data dumped (new window)

The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. . . ."

Fart_Machine: Weaver95: Fart_Machine:

So two guys make up the entire scientific community now.

it was far more than just two guys.

Where is the evidence of some worldwide conspiracy which is what you're alleging?

How the Schizophrenic Mind Works

Donald_McRonald: Weaver95: i'm saying that entire story about the CRU trashing their original dataset is pointless distraction. the real story is the pattern of highly unethical behavior shown in that email archive.

I thought the real story was about how global warming is a conspiracy/scam pushed by scientists to make money for certain vested interests?

We'll never know, because Weaver95 is incapable of writing down coherent thoughts, and can instead only communicate in oblique references so he can't be pinned down to actually having a specific thought in his head.

UEA don't need no education?

/why does everyone, including the guardian it seems, call it UAE? Isn't that the United Arab Emirates? (although I woldn't be surprised if the UAE owns the UEA)

donwregefark: Obdicut: What did they do that was wrong, Weaver? The raw data is available from the stations, as it always was.

Oh yeah?

Climate change data dumped (new window)

The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. . . ."

so they called a mobile evidence destructor van after it was leaked that thier numbers may not be right..... this does not look the least bit suspicious at all. Anyone that says otherwise is a mouth breathing troll sent by Rush Limbaugh himself.

donwregefark: Oh yeah?

Yes. They didn't produce the original data. The weather stations still have the original data. Feel free to access it in order to show that CRU's models are scandalously wrong.

Which is what the deniers would be doing if they had any scientific credibility.
Weaver95: But this wasn't any sort of grand conspiracy...this was just plain old human stupidity and arrogance.

So all 97% of climatologists who support the theory of AGW are stupid and arrogant.

Thank god brave people like you and the creationists are around to tell us how arrogant and stupid those scientists are.

"...it's pointless to continue further."


This. Just sort-of generally, this.

Weaver95: [snip] And that archive contains a LOT of things that show those influential scientists doing some very unethical things. [snip]


Some good points, but you could probably safely take down the histrionics a couple of notches. This is the thing - what I've seen isn't all that bad, and IMHO isn't as you describe in bold. I think you're quite right to talk about perception, but at some point one probably should make the judgment call that perception should be grounded in reality. At some point we should probably value what's actually being said instead of simply the perception of such.

When noting that within certain arenas perception is as good as reality, it's one thing to do so in a positive sense, it's another to argue it normatively. Good points, but maybe you could be clearer in this regard.

Weaver95: I'm sure you'd rather frame the debate that way...I mean, it's much easier to assume this is all some sort of vast conspiracy, right? But this wasn't any sort of grand conspiracy...this was just plain old human stupidity and arrogance.

Which all serves to answer the question of whether scientists are subject to the same personal incentives for wealth and notoriety as other people. If anybody was making the argument that the scientific method is an airtight control on human self-interest, they would be losing their battle right now.

The history of science is littered with self-interest among its prime movers, as is any other industry. Obviously, the attempts to control and filter out that sort of behavior are more vigorous and baked into the system, but they're never going to be perfect.

If we decide to throw out entire theories simply because some people with an agenda got jiggy in a corner with some portion of the data, there's going to be very little learning that actually satisfies our standards of legitimacy.

Weaver95: um...you might want to read...ah, never mind. i'll just sit here and enjoy the fact that you just hoisted yourself by your own petard.

Oh, man, is this the point where Weaver declares himself winner of the thread and heads off for lunch? Already?

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.


If I send you a copy of a file, and you delete that file, is the data destroyed?

Furthermore, the data that was destroyed (but still available from the original sources) was from the monitoring stations that were corrupted by urban heat growth. In other words, they destroyed data that, were it included in calculations, would have made global warming look worse!

So I am failing to see the scandal in which a copy of data available elsewhere was destroyed.

GAT_00: So is this yet another thread on this where the right pretends that just because one group of people did something stupid, all climate data is somehow bad? Because we just haven't had enough of that idiocy lately.

No, it's where people who can think and see things for themselves try to explain carefully, in words of one syllable, that Global Warming is a hoax.

Global Warming "scientists" have just done this, in their own words.

GAT_00 2009-11-30 10:55:22 AM

So is this yet another thread on this where the right pretends that just because one group of people did something stupid, all climate data is somehow bad? Because we just haven't had enough of that idiocy lately.

Yea, that is all there is here. A couple of rouge people, let's forget that they are the primary source for the IPCC reports that everyone one quotes. Oh, and they are the peer-review guys. Yep, nothing to see here, move along and drink your kool-aid.

make me some tea: I would actually agree on that point you're trying to make, there.

I would say that the scandal came about because they didn't do enough politics, myself, and concentrated too much on the science. They underestimated the amount of shiat being flung at them.

This is what's killing science education in this country.

Read The Secret History of Lead (new window) to learn the history of the corporate PR techniques we now see distorting the climate change "debate", created by crooks and parroted by dopes.

Weaver95: chimp_ninja:
We'll never know, because Weaver95 is incapable of writing down coherent thoughts, and can instead only communicate in oblique references so he can't be pinned down to actually having a specific thought in his head.

*scrolls up through thread*

um...you might want to read...ah, never mind. i'll just sit here and enjoy the fact that you just hoisted yourself by your own petard.

"Uh, no.. man, it's if you read the one post I'm thinking about, definitely not what the other guy was going to write, even if he didn't write it. If you read what's out.. you know, there, you'd see that you can't not see that somewhere along the line, someone could have done something wrong, I think. Everyone knows that. You just have to read, you know, the key stuff, which I'm sure you could find. Man."

Call us when you have something to actually state, you blowhard.

GAT_00: The fun part about Stonewall Jackson: nobody knows if the name was an insult or a compliment. At Bull Run, Gen. Bee saw Jackson's men, in not the best position, taking a beating from Union regiments and not budging. Bee then noted "There stands Jackson like a stone wall. Let's go help him." Nobody knows if he was complimenting Jackson on his troops not breaking, or insulting him for being in a bad position, and nobody could ask him because Bee was killed half an hour after he said that.

Your history lesson for today.

I've never read that he had his troops in a bad position, but rather that he had them protected on the up slope of a small hill while bee was catching hell.

Obdicut: donwregefark: Oh yeah?

Yes. They didn't produce the original data. The weather stations still have the original data. Feel free to access it in order to show that CRU's models are scandalously wrong.

Which is what the deniers would be doing if they had any scientific credibility.
Weaver95: But this wasn't any sort of grand conspiracy...this was just plain old human stupidity and arrogance.

So all 97% of climatologists who support the theory of AGW are stupid and arrogant.

Thank god brave people like you and the creationists are around to tell us how arrogant and stupid those scientists are.

"While examining a series of NASA temperature graphs, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, himself not so much a skeptic as an anti-warming Van Helsing, uncovered a discontinuity occurring in January 2000 that raised temperatures gathered over widespread areas by 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. McIntyre had no easy time of it, since Hansen refused to reveal what algorithm he'd used to process the data, forcing McIntyre to perform some very abstruse calculations to figure it out.


Once notified, Hansen's team promised to correct the error, stating that it was an "oversight." When the corrected figures were at last released, they rocked the church of warming from bingo hall to steeple. Vanished was the claim that the past few years were "the warmest on record." Now 1934 took precedence. A full half of the top ten warmest years occurred before WWII, well prior to any massive CO2 buildup."

=======

Professor Plimer (School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide) submits (p.444):


The IPPC claims that its reports are written by 2500 scientists. In fact, they are written by 35, who are controlled by an even smaller number.


Plimer is not a climate alarmist. He is a world-renowned geologist who adds (p.462):


Attempts to restrict free speech and calls for censorship of alternative views are made by climate zealots. Such actions have characterized salvationist cults down through the ages.

=========

Tree-Ring Circus. Due to the fact that direct temperature measures for past epochs are lacking, climatologists utilize "proxy measures," such as tree rings, glacial moraines, and lake sediments. Tree rings have played an important part in the warming controversy as evidence backing the claim that temperatures have been consistently lower worldwide until recently. A crucial series of measurements utilized by Mann, among others, involves trees located on the Yamal peninsula in Siberia. How many trees were measured, you ask? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?


The answer is twelve: a number perfectly adequate to trigger international panic, overthrow the capitalist system, establish Green totalitarianism, and completely turn Western culture on its head.


But it turns out that further measurements were in fact made in the area, involving at least thirty-four other trees. And when this data is added to the original twelve, then the warming evidence disappears into the same branch of the Twilight Zone as the grip of Mann's hockey stick. Another "oversight", you understand.

Weaver95: you didn't pay attention to any of what I wrote, did you? well - at least I tried.

Ah, the standard Weaver95 self-crucifixion. How's the view up there?

When you said, in reference to the Times Online article about the data being destroyed-- the article that you believed, defended, and mocked me for saying was false, and that is, in fact, false-- when you said:

the house of cards does seem to be collapsing...but I think this is more due to an all too human arrogance and stupidity than any sort of organized conspiracy.

What did you mean, then?

Weaver95: Pay attention - the crime here is that these scientists stopped doing science. they became lobbyists, with all the negative connotations that implies.

I agree that scientists should never be lobbyists; it necessarily corrupts the system. I just don't agree that this casts significant doubt on the theory or the scientific method as a whole. (Not necessarily responding to your perspective, but to others I've heard.)

Damnhippyfreak above mentioned that (paraphrasing) while it's true that perception influences a political reality, we shouldn't be slaves to it. Yes, this is a PR blunder for the scientists, but it's only public ignorance that lets this be a black mark for the specific science, or the nature of the scientific method itself.

Weaver95: Obdicut: make me some tea: I would actually agree on that point you're trying to make, there.

I would say that the scandal came about because they didn't do enough politics, myself, and concentrated too much on the science. They underestimated the amount of shiat being flung at them.

This is what's killing science education in this country.

woah. that is SO not the case! In fact, that archive is all about the implications of what they say and how they say it. For example:

From: Grant Foster
To: , Mike Mann , , "J. Salinger" , James Annan , , Gavin Schmidt ,
Subject: FW: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:08:21 +0000

> From: jgr-atmospheresugaorg
> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:54:05 +0000
> To: tamino_9liamtohcom
> Subject: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
> CC: twistor9liamgcom
>
> Manuscript Number: 2009JD012960
> Manuscript Title: Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric
temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter
>
>
> Dear Dr. Foster:
>
> 3 reviews of your above-referenced manuscript are attached below. Reviewer 3 is concerned with the tone on the writing; while I appreciate the value of "taking the high road", I do
not object to emphatic statements that conclusions are incorrect. Strong language is needed sometimes when errors must be corrected. Please carefully consider the Reviewers'
recommendations for revisions, make the necessary changes, and respond to me with a point-by-point response of how you have addressed each concern.

As you can see Obi, these guys are VERY aware of how their reports will play out in public view. And this is merely ONE email out of a very large string of emails that show these guys with their eye on the PR ball.

You can find a similar statement in pretty much any review letter, ever. Write a paper, submit for peer-review, and see if you can make it through one pass without accusations of "serious error" and "strong language." That's how the process works, and laymen really aren't qualified to judge it. Of course, that won't stop you....

Let's try that again:



/I fail

Weaver95: As you can see Obi, these guys are VERY aware of how their reports will play out in public view. And this is merely ONE email out of a very large string of emails that show these guys with their eye on the PR ball.

Sure. They've been forced to play a certain amount of politics and PR by people like you who are ready to believe any story, no matter what the source, claiming malfeasance on the part of scientists.

So, the better they are at politics, the less we'll hear about any actual malfeasance, but the more they concentrate on science, the more often the smears will penetrate and be taken up as rallying cries by useful idiots like yourself.

It's a great Catch-22.

Keep crying wolf, hopefully people will catch on and stop ignoring you completely.

make me some tea: It's too bad that the original aggregate data was discarded.

The stations still have it. It's even publicly available. It's from the NOAA. If someone actually wanted to challenge CRU's scientific model, they'd use the data and show a different result. They don't, of course, because it's not an actual scientific criticism of CRU, just a disingenuous, political attack.

Limbaugh is pushing this strongly too.

Weaver95: Obdicut: So all 97% of climatologists who support the theory of AGW are stupid and arrogant.

*sigh*

you didn't pay attention to any of what I wrote, did you? well - at least I tried.


I think the points you're arguing are valid, but you could do better in how you're actually framing your argument if you believe you're being misunderstood. I noted above that it does not seem clear, at least to me, whether you're arguing that this is how things are or how they should be vis a vis perception and reality. There are a lot of science-minded people around in here who tend to value actual evidence more than PR.

For instance, the post you're responding to points out that the CRU isn't the sum total of climatology - a fact that would work against your argument if you were arguing it normatively, in that the perception of the e-mails doesn't detract from the reality of the climatological community.

I think this is more misunderstanding than any fundamental disagreement.

Weaver95: kriegsgeist: Of course, that won't stop you....

Oh I just grabbed one email at random. there's a LOT more in there to prove my point. I could easily spend all day long showing you email after email after email where these guys spent time obsessing over how their statements will play in the press. And not just in obscure journals either.

I don't expect you to believe me though. go read it for yourself. the archive is up on wikileaks.

I've read a lot of it, a couple hundred at least. I'm still looking for the ones that prove these guys did something wrong. So far I have seen emails taken out of context that laymen interpret as evidence of fraud. I haven't seen anything that as a scientist I think proves wrongdoing. If you have some, I'd love to see them....

Weaver95: Oh I just grabbed one email at random. there's a LOT more in there to prove my point. I could easily spend all day long showing you email after email after email where these guys spent time obsessing over how their statements will play in the press. And not just in obscure journals either.

Translation, for those unfamiliar with reading Weaver95 dodge-ology:
"I picked out an email that doesn't even show a hint of a problem. This was pointed out to me, but instead of making an actual, valid point in a conversation for the first time in my life, I'm going to refer obliquely with an unprovable allegation to a vague feeling I get from a generic document which may or may not exist, instead of bringing forward any kind of evidence. I do this because I'm a farking running joke who can't answer any question."