Consensus, Fraud and Global Warming?

[burk48237]

It is now becoming clear that the largest clearing house for Global Warming science has been guilty of fraud, falsifying data, and violations of the FOI (freedom of information act). If you haven't heard, hackers have broke into the data bank of the East Angilia Climate research unit. They have released a huge volume ( 172 MB's so far) of communication between many of the worlds leading scientific proponents of anthropogenic global warming. They appear to be legitimate, and no one has challenged their authenticity. Here is what has been revealed so far:

1) An organized systematic attempt to avoid the sharing of data with any scientist who did not agree with their views

2) Signing of and releasing of critical reports including IPCC reports with known false data

3) Admitting that we have "no idea" what effect "clouds and water vapor" have on the process of climate formation.

4) An organized attempt to censor any negative scientific studies, including firing people at publications who allow contradictory (to AGW) studies to be published.

5) The criminal destruction of data and attempted destruction of emails requested in FOI filings.

6) The changing of input data into computer models to produce desired results.

A continually updating list of the emails can be found here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...ttings-33.html

A few other articles here:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-...-does-it-mean/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258..._sections_news

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ipulation.html

[MJ5150]

I figured as much.

Now I can quit screwing around with all this BS about separating my garbage for recycling and go ahead and buy the new F-350 I've had my eyes on.

-Mike

[DaveDeVille]

hmmm ... should this one be in the Lobby ??

[hbarcat]

This confirmation of institutionalized fraud in order to increase the public's fear of anthropogenic global warming is hardly surprising to me. Yet I don't dispute the validity of AGW, itself. I have nothing but contempt for the fear mongers who've exaggerated the numbers and lied in the name of science in order to further their own economic or political goals.

AGW is a qualitatively valid theory and is something we should be concerned about. Coming up with good numbers about just how much effect the burning of fossil fuels is having on the environment is something that we should be making a priority, even if it turns out that the effect is smaller than we've been led to believe. Now that it's becoming clear that those who have been screaming about it the longest and who have been the self appointed spokesmen for the issue are being exposed as frauds, it's likely that the genuine science will be set aside completely, legitimate numbers won't be trusted when they do come out and the issue will become nothing more than a political football.

[René_Julien]

Originally Posted by hbarcat

This confirmation of institutionalized fraud in order to increase the public's fear of anthropogenic global warming is hardly surprising to me. Yet I don't dispute the validity of AGW, itself. I have nothing but contempt for the fear mongers who've exaggerated the numbers and lied in the name of science in order to further their own economic or political goals.

AGW is a qualitatively valid theory and is something we should be concerned about. Coming up with good numbers about just how much effect the burning of fossil fuels is having on the environment is something that we should be making a priority, even if it turns out that the effect is smaller than we've been led to believe. Now that it's becoming clear that those who have been screaming about it the longest and who have been the self appointed spokesmen for the issue are being exposed as frauds, it's likely that the genuine science will be set aside completely, legitimate numbers won't be trusted when they do come out and the issue will become nothing more than a political football.

Perhaps nature wants us to burn all the fossil fuels?
Anyone considered that?



Last week, a national enviromental institution, purchased a big hunk of land to take in their care.
They were pissed at the state of the plains and forests, because the previous owners did not do anything with it the last 70 years and let nature take their course.



I am for the enviroment and I respect nature.

But most enviromental groups are their own worst enemies. And mostly run by incompetent scientist who couldn't find a good paying job out of college.


IMO and IME off course.

[lunarpollen]

There's no doubt that humans affect the environment. And just about every sane person wants pollution to be minimized. But the partisan politicians and those aligned with them on either manufactured "side" of the global warming debate are just trying to "sell" their own respective "product" to the masses, as usual presenting a false dichotomy to us in order to keep us polarized and arguing.

If the world population keeps growing and becoming more industrialized at it's current rate, things are going to get bad no matter what, and the only ones profiting from it will be the wealthy elites who have already positioned themselves to profit either off continued dependence on fossil fuels or on exploitation of "green" alternative energy technologies, both of which rely on depletable resources, whether they are fossil fuels or rare earths and minerals needed to build non-fossil fuel technologies. The energy wars of the future will be fought over minerals that the layperson isn't aware is valuable and depletable, but that certain wealthy entities have already invested in (and by "invested," I include by military conquest. Kosovo is a prime example, the most concentrated and plentiful source of such minerals and rare earths in Europe outside of Russia).

[RWP]

Not a surprise. However, I doubt even this evidence will stop anything. On the brighter side SNL sure was funny!

[thobbinghotrod]

If your boat might be sinking, don't also set it on fire.

In other words, err on the side of caution. Also it would be nice not to have polution in our lakes and fields when we go out to have a picknick.

Just sayin It wouldn't bother me to live a little better, whether or not global warming is real.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by hbarcat

AGW is a qualitatively valid theory and is something we should be concerned about. Coming up with good numbers about just how much effect the burning of fossil fuels is having on the environment is something that we should be making a priority, even if it turns out that the effect is smaller than we've been led to believe.

+1.

Even if its not nearly as apocalyptic as we've been lead to believe, there's still no reason not to support greener ideas.

At least, I'm not a big fan of biting off my nose to spite my face. YMMV.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

+1.

Even if its not nearly as apocalyptic as we've been lead to believe, there's still no reason not to support greener ideas.

At least, I'm not a big fan of biting off my nose to spite my face. YMMV.

I don't disagree, but there's a difference between supporting greener ideas and imposing them. And if your going to impose something in the name of "science" it had better be good and settled science.

[Phalex]

I think global warming is real, I'm just not so sure that humans are the cause of it all. The earth has cycles and we may be in a completely natural warming trend.

That being said, if your doctor says that you have high blood pressure and you've never eaten a lot of salt, it's no good reason not to take the pills. (Or whatever.)

[burk48237]

The whole issue is this, for years many who have questioned GW have been accused of being irrational or against science. The problem is those who support AGW aren't practicing science. This author sums it up here:

They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.

That is what it really comes down too. In the last ten years Global temps have stabilized and in some cases decreased the THEORY IS FALSE. It's simple really, GW advocates say increased C02 is the "cause" of warming temps, well if that is the case then Temps MUST continue to increase when more CO2 is introduced into the system. Over the last ten years just the opposite has happened.

And in this case it has gone further then that, because the Science has become an industry, and a fraud based industry at that. What has happened is not just unethical, unscientific, it is illegal.

This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._in_99280.html

Note: This article while on real clear politics, does not address the political issues of the story, only the legal and ethical concerns.

[billhilly66]

On the plus side, I read that global warming was causing more women to go into prostitution. http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/c...dangerous-work

So if there are more women becoming whores, the price should come down right? And if the availability goes up and the price goes down, some of the women that give it up after dinner and a movie might have to adjust to the new economic reality. This could mean significant savings to some of us single fellas.

Imagine, instead of a steak dinner and full price movie tickets, some of us could get away with Denny's and a rental. Hmmm, I'm going to go burn some tires.

[MakiSupaStar]

It makes me wonder how often this happens in other scientific fields of study where there's grant money or a political campaign behind it.

[RWP]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

It makes me wonder how often this happens in other scientific fields of study where there's grant money or a political campaign behind it.

Ummm...all of them?

[MakiSupaStar]

Originally Posted by RWP

Ummm...all of them?

Well, that's gotta be the assumption from now on. Sadly.

[coreyfyfe]

Much like the emails that were chosen out of the 160 gigabites of data, they are referring to choosing data for graphical representation and trend-line analysis, not necessarily falsifying data. Not an entirely ethical behavior, but not uncommon either. Research is expensive and how you present your data has a huge impact on how you continue to fund your work. I'm not endorsing any of what they did, I'm just saying a lot of the reaction has been far overblown, and IMO it's because people are, just as this group of scientists did, cherry picking data to fit their model.

For a good analysis sans the politics, read this one:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...-bytes-of.html

"Still: I don't know how you get from some scientist having sexed up a graph in East Anglia ten years ago to The Final Nail In The Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anyone who comes to that connection has more screws loose than the Space Shuttle Challenger. And yet that's literally what some of these bloggers are saying!"

[SnoMan]

So, between this and swine flu, can we now stop acting like everything is going to destroy humanity immediately?

We need better journalism. Journalism is so very important. These guys need reprimanded hard and all the public needs to know. Of course, good journalism alone won't stop people from lying, but it will help us in learning the truth. The sensational and unrelenting fear that we're given only damages us.

[hbarcat]

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

It makes me wonder how often this happens in other scientific fields of study where there's grant money or a political campaign behind it.

In the field of medical science, when a study finds a correlation with evidence of causation, then that study is almost always published in a major peer reviewed journal. Similar studies that do not find evidence of causation end up being published only 10% as often.

Grant money is highly dependent on being published and this means there is a great motivation for authors of a study to conclude the existence of causative links.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by burk48237

The whole issue is this, for years many who have questioned GW have been accused of being irrational or against science. The problem is those who support AGW aren't practicing science.

Balderdash. A global statement which is inaccurate on its face.

As it happens, I work at a university with many faculty members who are quite knowledgeable about this issue.

GW IS a theory supported by scientific evidence, and those who study it have no doubt that it is a real phenomenon. As pointed out earlier in this thread, the causes are complex and cannot be pinpointed. However, there is plenty of evidence that even if human behavior is not the primary cause, it is a major contributing factor.

When one is a major contributing factor to a problem, it makes sense to alter ones' behavior to mitigate the problem. (If you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, if you want to get out, the first thing to do is to stop digging.)

That is not a political statement, it is logic.