Global Warming Farce exposed for the farce it is.
 

So a few hackers decided to hack the British Climate Research center at University of East Anglia and found alot of substitution of data, bad data, suppression of truth as well as their own doubts of truth.

Good stuff.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com...ce-conspiracy/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

No comments on the farce?

Not sure there's much to comment on.

I've got no problem with actual scientific debate on global warming. But hackers leaking some emails from a relatively few people doesn't prove much of anything -- it certainly doesn't prove (or disprove) whether global warming is occuring.

I take it you didn't read the articles. It's clear there's no "actual science" involved.
Uhm, the University of East Anglia is perhaps the premier research organization on climate change. Many facts that are commonly cited on the debate were created by the scientists at this University. Furthermore, the scientists were finding "Climate decline" instead of increases, but chose to suppress the evidence in favor of climate increase.
It doesn't, but it definitely sheds light on the business.

I read two of them. One link didn't work. To be honest, the article from First Things (which I generally like) read to me like it was from The Onion. And with Fox I consider the source (just as I would with MSNBC or numerous other outlets).

I don't think the conclusion you've drawn is at all clear unless you want to find it there. It's just way too broad a characterization to say that what's reported in those articles shows that global warming is a farce. It's kind of the equivalent of exposing some Bible scholars -- put them at the Vatican or at Oxford, if you like -- who are trying to hide "real facts" and saying that you've exposed the Bible or Judaism or Christianity as a farce or hoax. Sort of a Dan Brown approach.

Maybe this points to something bigger, or maybe it's nothing more than some (allegedly) unethical scientists who are still nevetheless right about global warming, despite their lack of ethics.

It's the sensationalism of headlines like "farce exposed" that make me think thoughtful comments are not necessary because only reflexive comments are sought.

which is why i (and prolly most people on GC) did not even bother responding.

I'll add some thoughtful comments. My take on pollution/man made global warming is this: Whether these forms of pollution actually cause global warming is controversial and difficult to prove. However, the cancer rates and asthma rates in areas with high pollution are very high and, I will never believe that the orange smoke that comes out of one of the factories between my house and my work could be anything but unhealthy to breathe. Have you ever gotten a big breath chock full of car exhaust by accident? It's awful. It can't be healthy. Whether we're causing global warming or not, we've banned second hand smoke in many public places, but our air quality laws became more lax under the Bush administration. I don't want to keep breathing that crap, whether it causes global warming or not. The fewer chemicals we put into the air, the better, for our health.

^^^This. I am not a scientist, and I know this. Everything I do know about science tells me that climate change is real, but I am not a scientist. However, through my own observation, I know that good air is better than bad air - that is obvious, regardless of whether it impacts the weather.

Absolutely. Fixing global warming has huge direct benefits. While carbon doesn't really hurt us, it has other environmental consequences such as increasing the acidity of the ocean, which has been shown to decrease the chances of some fish getting away from predators.

I don't know about y'all, but I could definitely stand to breathe less sulfur, etc.

Too early on a Monday for me to say anything except co-sign.

Co-sign MysticCat, dreamseeker, AGDee, Soror Ren, and Kevin.

To put multi billions of $$$ into a effort such as Cap and Trade when it is now being shown that the science may have been faulty at best and fraudulent at worse would be a "crime". Clearing up pollutants such as sulphur etc. is a different task then trying to reverse what may be the natural progression/variance of Earth's temperature. I would bet that the Sun (via Sunspot activity) may have more of an effect on global temperature variations than what we humans can possible achieve via carbon dioxide emissions.

Sorry, but even if you completely ignore climate change, excessive carbon has been shown to have deleterious effects on both flora and fauna. The only questionable aspect of cap and trade is that it is a pretty useless and expensive policy without the full cooperation of the rest of the world. With both India and China ramping up their capacities to pollute, I question whether cap and trade or any single-country environmental reform can have any sort of significant environmental impact whatsoever.

Would you really "bet" that? Because millions of anti-Global-Warming political, social and scientific minds would love for that to be the case, and NONE can prove to any degree that climate and environment changes (such as melting polar ice caps, glacier loss, ocean temperatures, increased tornado activity, etc.) are naturally occurring or are in any way part of a "natural cycle".

Sure, science can't prove exactly how global climate is being affected by man. However, we can't hand-wave away changes - seriously. Do we really think that nature is some sort of magic sponge that can soak up man's activities, no matter how destructive? I'm fine with claiming some of the more extreme members of the scientific community aren't worth listening to, but that's the truth regardless of which direction their views may skew. Cap-and-trade has problems of its own, but none are really related to global warming - it should be judged on its own merits, and not the demerits of a few agenda-driven douche bags (on either side).

Just because we can't currently understand the mechanism, that doesn't mean nothing is happening. And just because a group of researchers spent a lot of time using charting techniques and data manipulation to make their findings look better doesn't mean the entirety of global climatic change is in any way a farce.

^^^ I agree with your assertion that India and China will continue to contribute tremendously to the carbon output. I also agree that there is nothing we can do to change their direction. Cap and trade is ill conceived and will only further damage our economy while the developing nations continue along their merry way.

On another point. I am not so sure that we could change the climate if we wanted. I am of the opinion that any warming or cooling is more due to the natural trends in nature and specifically the Sun. My sneaking suspicion is that this whole thing is a money making scam. It appears that people such as Al Gore and his ilk stand to make bundles from the sales of carbon offsets and credits. Kind of reminds me of derivatives and junk bonds. Guess I am a little bit of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to the global warming debate.

Does anyone remember Red Dye # 2, alar, chlorfloro carbons, freon, DDT, etc.?

Yes.

chlorfloro carbons were used to make ashtma inhalers

I find it harder to breathe without them.

I don't disagree that a good amount of this is agenda-driven, but that doesn't mean it's wrong prima facie. Also, on your list above, at least half really don't support your point at all . . .

Co-sign!

It certainly throws into question the data used to support the argument. My point being that these were all instances of extremes taken to "protect the population". Banning DDT caused deaths from malaria to rise precipitously. I too cannot use my inhaler for my asthma and the other product does not control my attacks. Red Dye # 2 never was a threat. This just reminds me of the story of the "boy who cried wolf". Who the heck is going to believe these "experts" after all these frauds?

I reject that there is actully manmade global warming. The earth may or may not be warming but so what. How do we know that this is not just the "hand of God" sending the Earth through it's normal cyclical temperature change? How do we know that other countries will not benefit from an increase in the temperature of the Earth? How do we know that there really will be deleterious effects from failing to jump on the band wagon and spending multibillions of $$ for someone like Al Gore's pet projects? This is agenda driven and I suspect it is a racket for some intellectuals to make lots of $$$$ via grants etc. With the data now in question, I would hope that those who have been supporters would now insist that there be new reasearch into the true changes in climate temperature.

Frauds? Seems like the wrong word to me. For it to have been a fraud, you have to show that there was intentional deceit. There is a difference between fraud and incomplete understanding.

On the other hand, how do we know there are not human activities that are negatively exaccerbating global warming? Why do you reject "manmade global warming"? Is it on the basis of scientific evidence (or lack thereof), or is it for some other reason?

There are agendas (and $$$$) driving both sides of the debate -- I don't see how that can be denied without buying into one agenda or the other.

The data on DDT was fraudulently arrived at and was never properly vetted. Freon and the data supporting the ozone layer shrinking is very very questionable. When one doctor's, deletes or avoids opposing information while performing a "scientific" study I call it fraud. Ths is a true case of deceit on the part of the researchers at East Anglia University in England. Do you disagree? You cannot omit data that does not support your view. Sample sizes must be properly obtained so the margin of error is reasonable. Manipulated or incomplete data is worthless unless you are only trying to prove your POV at the expense of true scientific research.

I just don't believe we are "smart" enough or "dumb" enough to change nature. If we wanted to change the Earth's temperature in either direction (cooler or hotter) I do not believe we could so so. 30 years ago we were in a "global cooling" trend according to the environmentalist. When the data changed the hue and cry changed.

Soo, that is true with everything. But in this case we are accepting the environmentalist agenda without question and failing to properly vet the reports and studies that "support" the view that man is the reason for global warming.

My agenda is that I have seen man go overboard pandering to the environmental extremist and I am very concerned where this new effort and the multi billions or trillions of $$$ that will be extorted from us will take our country.

During the time the Earth has existed we have had numerous changes in the climate. Both cooling and warming. Many of these changes occured prior to man inhabiting the Earth. The data is incomplete and the timeframes are too narrow.

Follow th money!!!!

Perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but I don't believe I know enough to say one way or the other. I will readily admit that it looks fishy, and they may really have been trying to pull a fast one. But even if they were, I have a hard time translating that it into an international conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud. I would need a lot more evidence of that.

Not smart enough to change nature? Tell that to the Dutch, who've done a pretty good job of controlling the oceans and wetlands around them. Seems to me rather naive to think we can put whatever we want to in the air without any consequence at all.

To be clear, I'm all for healthy skepticism. But I think what is basically an anti-environmentalist agenda is just as biased and unproductive as a do-whatever-the-environmentalists-say agenda.

And then we have this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

How convenient that the raw data was dumped, and all that was kept was the revised data, using what has been shown by the emails to be politically contrived data, so that now noone can scientifically test the raw data...

So much for the scientific method of testing raw data to authenticate and replicate results thereby proving a hypothesis...

And from an earlier article in the Times (of London - certainly not a bastian of right wing American journalism and hardly a Faux News;))

And:

Sounds like a Hollywood movie plot. Deny access, deny access, deny access - WOOPS! we dumped the data!! :rolleyes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936289.ece


Okay, just Wow...

Hilariously, the London Times is owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch.

I'm not sure I can get on board with the consequences of this type of thought process - it effectively undermines all scientific research.

"Getting cancer from asbestos? F- it - hand of God! Can't prove it isn't a natural cycle to kill off poor people in high-rise apartments! Here, eat lead paint chips."

The point of the scientific method is to understand the underlying reasons and consequences of phenomena - so we can do more than postulate that man can't affect the Earth (and, once again, natural systems have shown NO ability to adapt to man past a certain point - where are all the new-growth rainforests popping up to replace species' habitats, etc.?) from the seat of our pants.

These, however, are totally valid questions to ask - and the reason why a "Hand of God"/deus ex machina view of nature is neither ideal nor useful. These are things that should be explored - will a rise in temperature reduce the amount of arable land? How will rising oceans and fracturing ice caps affect climate?

And, perhaps most importantly: WHETHER OR NOT climate change is natural, since humans are essentially no longer subject to macroevolutionary forces due to technology, can we adapt fast or efficiently enough to offset the changes? I find that those who deny global climate change just assume the answer to that question is "yes" - without realizing that the reliance on industry to handle this is the real money trail. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul, except Paul doesn't give a shit about anything but the bottom line.

Oh really? haha, guess they have an agenda as well!!

I just can't believe some of the stuff that's coming out about this. Like I said, it sounds like the plot of a movie (Please cast Clive Owen somewhere in it ;)).

Well, we wouldn't expect it to be a bastion of American anything. But it is historically considered (with some exceptions) a bastion of British Conservatism.

Yep.

And co-sign on everything else you said.

I wouldn't call this a conspiracy, I'd call this a researcher who lost site of his true goal...finding the truth, not proving his theory correct. It is a common problem in science. He is not the first and will not be the last researcher to fall prey to this sort of error in judgement. He became convinced along the way that he was right and when data didn't fall in line with his conclusion, it became okay to throw it out. He is now a disgrace, mainly because he disposed of the raw data so no one can ever check to see if he truly is correct. His data is tainted.

On to the next topic, We have in the past damaged the environment with chemicals we've dumped into the water and released into the air...pretending we haven't is laughable. How much money has the government had to spend in cleanups?

Because it doesn't fit your agenda you shoot the messenger?

Because it doesn't fit your agenda, you misread what he said? ;)

He didn't shoot the messenger. He responded with amusement to srmom's statement that The Times is "hardly a Faux News" by simply noting that The Times, like Fox News, is owned by Robert Murdoch. Nothing more.

If you falsify data and omit data that is contrary to what you wish to prove you have poisioned your own well. That is what undermines scientific research. Good grief! I have done enough research in my career to know that a good scientist tries to disprove their hypothesis. You look for all the points that are contrary to what you wish to prove and then take the data gathered both pro and con to build a statistical case for your hypothesis.

Do you not believe that there is a natural ebb and flow of temperatures throughout the epochs on Earth? I do believe there was an ice age. I do believe that there was also a time when it was exceedingly warm in the upper reaches of what is now North America and the Artic. I do not believe that man caused the ice age nor did he cause the warming during the Jurrassic period.

Are you sure there is a precipitous rise in the overall temperature of our planet? The timeframe in these "studies" are too small and do not take in all the natural variations of our climate and the effect the Sun and Sunspots have on our temperatures. You cannot focus on just 50 to 100 year timeframes and point to that as evidence that man has caused the Earth to warm. Especially if you changed or omitted data!

The messenger being Rupert Murdoch not Srmom. What does the fact that Murdoch owns the outlet where the info is presented have to do with whether the "scientists" falsified information? Because he owns Fox News and may not lean as far left as CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS therefore any info from outlets he owns is automatically called into question?

Nothing. Where did KSig RC say it did? Nowhere.

He did not criticize, dismiss or call into question what was in The Times article; he didn't talk about the contents of the article at all. He simply noted the humor (irony?) in srmom's statement that The Times was certainly not a Fox News, when both are owned by Murdoch. That is all.

This is what undermines the specific research that was falsified, yes. It is not the only thing that undermines the scientific method, as shown by your semi-conflicting "Hand of God"/"who knows there aren't benefits?" postulating.

Of course I understand the natural cycles of temperature - and I understand that you've just committed an egregious causation/correlation fallacy in your logic. Let me be clear:

Climate change in the past is NOT and will never be proof that man cannot affect the environment in meaningful negative ways.

Actually, this is awkward logic as well - while I agree that small-sample climate data is shitty because of the inherent fluctuations (high volatility, to be more accurate), you really can't see why data from the last 50 to 100 years is the most important when looking forward? Unless the last ice age was also accompanied by an Industrial Revolution and marked increase in the number of man-made CFCs and other environmental wastes pumped into the environment, it seems like there is indeed a relevant time frame.

These dipshits mishandled and, it appears in at least some cases, manipulated data to fit their own goals. That's clear and undisputed. That does not "disprove" the entire concept of man's impact on the environment - we can go through dozens upon dozens of micro and macro examples that show that human waste has literal and severe effect on the planet, flora and fauna.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

In the past nature/God or whatever you want to name it did influence climate change. Hence my reference to the "hand of God". You have to take this statement not so literally and reference maybe something unknown to man caused the climate change during these times. And are we sure that the world as we know it is at it's optimal temperature?

Not all climate change WAS caused by man so it is therefore inherent in any scientific endeavor for the data to prove the original hypothesis. This is clearly not the case. If you know in the past that man was not the reason for the climate change it is even more important for one to prove that, in this case, man is the reason for the change. One must go the extra mile to overwhelmingly gathering data to support your new hypothesis. That is good science.

The problem is that the "dipshits" were/are the ones who provided the data to the U.N. that precipitated the U.N. moving forward in their endeavors. The evidence as presented is tainted and the U.N. is simply ignoring it. This is wrong. My bottomline is you can't falsify, delete, or omit data and call an hypothesis valid. Is 50 to 100 years of data, when conflicting data has been omitted, enough for us to spend ourselves into obilivion chasing what may or may not be a false hypothesis?

The way I read that, they didn't manipulate data to fit their needs, they adjusted to account for different methods of data collection and this is not unusual in research at all.

Say you have 6 sites doing the same protocol for a new cancer drug and they rely on blood test lab data. Each of the 6 sites will have slightly different instruments which may be calibrated slightly differently so that comparing them as raw data is NOT accurate. You take a control, figure out the variation at each site and adjust the data according to the variation. The same thing is done when you get a new lab instrument. You can't compare the data from the old instrument to the data from a new instrument because there will be variation. Statisticians calculate the variance between them and compare those numbers instead. This is not sloppy, this is standard operating procedure. It *is* sloppy to dump the raw data. It's hard to believe it doesn't exist on backup tapes somewhere. THAT is sloppy and could just as soon be the fault of the IT department as the scientists. Good IT people would never let that happen.

My two cents as an IT network administrator for a biostatistics department.

It depends on what variables were "cherry picked". There is a statistical method that allows for machine variance. Without the original data all the data is called into question. This was worse than sloppy and when you put into context the emails where they try to use statistical tricks we have a situation that calls the whole study into question.

Let's educate ourselves
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...av=hcmoduletmv

Don't let the climate doubters fool you



By Alan I. Leshner
Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM

Don't be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994 -- long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause for concern.
Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from the human activities of fossil-fuel burning and deforestation -- stands at 389 parts per million (ppm). We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000 years. Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century. Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend. The broader impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting glaciers and rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.



Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions. Already, sea levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end of this century. Some scientists have said that average temperatures could jump by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon dioxide level reaches 450 ppm. We may face even more dangerous impacts at 550 ppm, and above that level, devastating events. U.S. crop productivity would be affected, while European communities might suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
Doubters insist that the earth is not warming. This is in stark contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most respected scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21 letter to the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real. Still, the doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly non-radical science organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through 262 affiliated societies. Doubters also make selective use of the evidence, noting that the warming of the late 1990s did not persist from 2001 to 2008, while ignoring the fact that the first decade of the 21st century looks like it will be the warmest decade on record.
None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas levels rise. The public and policymakers should not be confused by a few private e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any case, remain irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on climate change. Selected language in the messages has been interpreted by some to suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or suppression. To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific process or the integrity of individual scientists. We applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those investigations. But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen emails, deployed on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow refute a century of evidence based on thousands of studies.
Palin also errs by claiming that America can't afford to reduce greenhouse gases. The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that inaction could cost us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of global gross domestic product per year. In contrast, the price of slowing emissions was estimated to be 1 percent of GDP. China, meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy technologies.
Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.



Alan I. Leshner is the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science.