Hide the Decline video

[Da Blob]

YouTube- Hide The Decline - Climategate

I know there is a thread on Global Warming... but I did a 'Search' and could not locate it. Perhaps someone who knows where it is would be kind enough to link this thread to it- or vice versa...
Anyway, I do not watch much television, so I am unaware of the status of "Climategate" .

Has it evolved from a polite debate to accusations of fraud ?

Gee, like no one has ever fudged numbers in order to be awarded a research grant to stay employed in a "publish or perish" academic environment...

 

[Tyria]

I think this is beyond the scope of a single research grant or fighting for one's job. This is deception on a large scale, and a witch hunt against those who went against the 'correct' opinion.

One of the reasons that I hated the global warming debate was that politics (and politicians!), money, and agendas got involved. When people say things like "The planet has a fever", you have to really step back for a minute and ask yourself what exactly is it that is being sold to you.

Don't misunderstand though... I hold that the possibility of global warming could be real (if the data supports it). But when you get proof of fraud, conspiracy, destruction of data (completely against intellectual honesty), and all else, things change pretty quickly.

I think what happened is another story of how science (and scientists) sold themselves out (and turned their back on the fundamental process of science). I hope that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their role in this sham.

Science is a self correcting process... I'm glad that it has corrected itself once again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Holy shit! I had no idea this happened!

I started a thread on INTPcentral, here's what I said:

NY Times: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute

Washington Times: EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling

WSJ: Global Warming With the Lid Off

Climate Emails (posted on WSJ)

Here's the summary: Hackers got into a british University computer system and got access to climatologist emails. It turns out that the climatologists have been talking about covering up data, deleting data, changing data. It's disturbing, and indicative that there is a larger scientific conspiracy.

It also raises an interesting moral question on hacking. I'm for hacking into government & businesses, when your goal is to reveal truth, rather than try to find secrets for gain (like discovering patent data, unpublished papers or trade secrets).

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

 

[Darby]

It also raises an interesting moral question on hacking. I'm for hacking into government & businesses, when your goal is to reveal truth, rather than try to find secrets for gain (like discovering patent data, unpublished papers or trade secrets).

My reaction is much the same, I had no idea, although my stance on the whole thing is that for me, it doesn't matter if it's heating up or cooling down, we should still take care of the earth, it's our home(for now).

And on the topic of hackers, the individual may have that intent, but if they get caught before they have such evidence of fraud, lying, etc., then they are seen as immoral anyways, because they shouldn't have been on private databases in the first place, and they have no evidence to back up their claims of conspiracy.

 

[Da Blob]

This a quote from the N.Y. Times article:

We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

LOL, you go ahead, hope your little hearts out.... It won't happen the evidence has already been destroyed most likely. Americans have such misplaced respect for the integrity of "Professors" or Educational Institutions of Higher Learning, but they are just as immoral as any other type of employee or business enterprise. They will "cut as many corners" as necessary to reap a profit from the gullible public...

 

[Darby]

Americans have such misplaced respect for the integrity of "Professors" or Educational Institutions of Higher Learning, but they are just as immoral as any other type of employee or business enterprise. They will "cut as many corners" as necessary to reap a profit from the gullible public...

Thats why we need INTP's we all seem to hate lying in one form or another, many even feel letting some of the truth slide, and not giving full detail is considered lying. Although admittedly, many of us also said we have lied, and when necessary would(which brings up the question of whether we value science over ourselves), and hated doing it, but did it anyways.

 

[fullerene]

haha, that's awesome crimson!


I didn't know the fact that the earth has been cooling was such an unknown thing, or I would have made a thread about it a while ago. I sort of match darby's views, that the earth is our home and we should take care of it, warming or not, but yes, the temperatures have been falling for a little while now.

I had heard much less verifiable reports about scientists being threatened to have their funding pulled if they tried to publish papers against global warming, too, in past years. In less extreme cases, I've heard (and actually believe this one--I'm not sure about the funding being pulled one) that it's very tough to get your anti-global warming papers published, given the Peer Review system (scientific papers can't be published until several other scientists look it over and "ok" that it's legitimate research worth publishing).

That's amusing, though. I'm not sure what I think of hackers in general (obviously, lots of people would abuse that power), but that's pretty damn awesome.

Although, given that these were guys who just put up the emails on the internet, it seems like it would be pretty easy to fake on their end, too. How has it been verified that the emails writen are actual emails written, and not just forgeries? How could it be?

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Although, given that these were guys who just put up the emails on the internet, it seems like it would be pretty easy to fake on their end, too. How has it been verified that the emails writen are actual emails written, and not just forgeries? How could it be?

Some of the people involved in the emails confirmed to news agencies that they had sent/received the emails.

 

[fullerene]

oh, did they? I thought I read in one of those articles that they hadn't yet... maybe I misread, or it was from an earlier date than the other one. I thought it said that the only thing that was confirmed is that the university's databases were actually hacked.

Even more excellent, then .

 

[Tyria]

I wonder how this whole thing will affect the talks in Copenhagen coming up.

I'm not exactly sure how I view hackers, but I think that exposing the truth is commendable. I hate when people go unpunished for their actions (especially when they are as large and elaborate as hiding the truth from the public). I think the police should be investigating the scientific fraud and collecting as much evidence as possible (before it disappears).

Karma truly is the world's equalizer.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

No one should be surprised by this crap.

(btw, I think humans have got nothing to do with temperature fluctuations.)

 

[Agent Intellect]

Humans do have an affect on the global climate, but so does every other organism. The distinction is that humans are not the only thing causing climate change. I've thought 'global warming' was a scare tactic at best, and an oversimplification at worst, for a long time, but climate change is very real, it's happened before, it's happening now, and will always happen here and on any other planet/moon/cosmic object of any sort.

Humans are definitely affecting the climate - but we are not the only variable (and are in fact probably a relatively small one). 'Global warming' is an oversimplification and a scare tactic (it's this generations communism).

Scientists who deceive the public are just as bad as politicians (or really anyone viewed as an authority figure) who deceive the public, and all deserve to be tried and punished. Normally I'm a bit of an easygoing person, not quick to point fingers, but people in positions of authority have a responsibility to be honest, even if it causes themselves professional grief.

I think Richard Feynman put it best in his speech "Cargo Cult Science"

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I agree with AI, I was just too lazy and not articulate enough to say something as long as what he said. ^_^

 

[futuramaff]

I sort of match darby's views, that the earth is our home and we should take care of it, warming or not, but yes, the temperatures have been falling for a little while now.

 

[Madoness]

I sort of match darby's views, that the earth is our home and we should take care of it, warming or not, but yes, the temperatures have been falling for a little while now.

I don't know about you, but... usually, cooling would also include crispier winters, not warmer, wouldn't you agree?

Spoiler

The recently concluded northern hemisphere winter was the second consecutive winter with a high mortality rate of seal pups resulting from a lack of sea ice. In the 2007-2008 winter, most of the newborn pups died in three of the four Baltic regions they inhabit.

The German federal ocean navigation agency, BSH, reports that the melt last winter in the Baltic was the greatest recorded in nearly 300 years, since measurements were first taken in 1720.

According to BSH, in the entire past century, save the winter seasons of 1960-1961 and 1988-1989, the Gulf of Bothnia remained completely frozen in February and until the middle of March.

But in recent winters, the melt has been so rapid that by mid-March the ice mass is as small as it is in December.

Estimates by the Meteorological Institute of Finland confirm this: the Baltic ice field in February stretched over 105,000 square kilometres. Although that area is twice that of the previous winter, it is just 25 percent of what it was in 1985, the coldest winter in the region's history, when the ice covered 400,000 square kilometres.

Münster believes the massive deaths of Baltic seals are both an announcement and a consequence of climate change. "Without ice, the ringed seal, like many other species in the northernmost regions, cannot survive," she said.

The seal pups need at least 90 days on the ice to survive. Furthermore, the ice floes must be extensive and thick enough to ensure the protection of the newborns.

Spoiler

It is a winter habitation option that few would hesitate over: the Siberian tundra or the glorious Gloucestershire wetlands.

But flocks of Bewick’s swans appear to have plumped for the former, prompting fears that their great migration might never be seen again.

Concerns have been raised by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust centre at Slimbridge where hundreds of the swans would normally have arrived and be settling for the winter months after a summer in Siberia. None has been sighted, leading conservationists to suggest that climate change has made the Arctic so warm that they are happy to stay put.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said that if temperatures continued to rise the birds might lose their “collective memory” of their winter home, denying Britain’s birdwatchers one of the year’s most impressive sights. About 8,100 swans usually winter in Britain. The majority, about 6,000, go to East Anglia, about 300 head for Slimbridge and others are seen on the Severn estuary, the Nene Washes, Cambridgeshire, and Martin Mere in Lancashire.

I would like to wait for proper published researches done to support the global cooling rather than shout it as loud as I can to prove my point.
So far, warmer winters are not really supporting the claim of this thread, doesn't matter how loud it is shouted or by how many.

As I understood.... some facts have been hidden, but yet, it isn't really overturning the global warming point as a whole, rather maybe has some sort of cooling effect on the issue but not on environment.

 

[Polaris]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/

Who do we believe, the bloggers concocting a nice cocktail, or the scientists? Conspiracy theories are always good media fodder.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I think it is premature at best to try and make anything out of this based on articles online. If someone knows where to find the actual e-mails, I imagine many of us here would be able to decipher what is going on for ourselves. Relying on bloggers with political agendas is not the way to go here. Face it, if there really is a global warming/cooling whatever, then it is in the interests of some very powerful people to cast doubt upon it the science of it. The same is true for the reverse. We shouldn't rely on either side in a politically charged debate for neither side is reliable.

So does anyone know where the actual emails can be found?

 

[Madoness]

From Polaris's given link

Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

"There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax," he told Threat Level. "There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation.

"It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way."

 

[fullerene]

IB: http://rapidshare.com/files/309803421/FOI2009.zip has them all in zip format. No promises that it doesn't have viruses or anything (I'm on linux), but I intend to look through them. Or at least look through the messages surrounding the ones that bloggers post, that they're being accused of taking out of context.

polaris: do you really trust scientists so much? I doubt they'd even want you to believe what they say just because they say it. It's so.... unscientific.

 

[Madoness]

cryptonia... one has to not trust scientists in order to trust science.
Lets say, I will have an illness, I am more likely willing to trust science in order to get well than to question a political agenda behind what could be..... even more, if some effects are too clear to be misrepresented.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Thanks Crypt, I'm gonna think about whether or not I want to try and go through them all myself. From what I've seen, so many of them require already knowing certain information to understand. References to papers to be peer reviewed and whatnot. Right now, I don't see how a layperson could make any legitimate claims to rampant fraud over the climate issue. Bad or somewhat unethical behavior, yeah. There does seem to be some attempts to hide data from Freedom of Information Act requests that need explaining but so far nothing that suggests climate change as an outright hoax. I think the purpose here from certain political perspectives is is to demonstrate questionable behavior among some scientists as a means to discredit any and all data about the subject.

Whatever the outcome is, we certainly are learning the dangers of mixing science and politics.

A big discussion is going on here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Here's a relevant bit of news, with a computer science twist. Mmmm computer science.

"The 'Read Me' file of a harried programmer who couldn't replicate the scientists' warming results."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-computer-codes-are-the-real-story/

 

[Polaris]

polaris: do you really trust scientists so much? I doubt they'd even want you to believe what they say just because they say it. It's so.... unscientific.

I have been busy in the last couple of days, so I'm sorry for the delay in answering your question, Cryptonia.

You have answered your own question within your question, thank you. Scientists rigorously question their own and other peer's research, that is the whole point of science. It requires extreme personal detachment from the subject in question, and therefore a high level of integrity. Madoness expressed it better than myself.

That is not to say there are and have been scientists who have been subject to corruption.

 

[fullerene]

hmm.... are you by any chance still in high school, in a non-sciency college studying something else, or an adult who has very little experience with scientists?

on a related note: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

^^I don't find the above sketchy at all (deleting things to save memory decades ago, when memory was expensive), but it is unfortunate. Rigorously questioning your peers' research is difficult when there's no raw data to start from.

I sort of understand what Madonness is saying, "if the effects are too clear to be misinterpreted", but in this case they're just... "not". I think you're mistaking "these effects are easy to see" with "I've been told this is happening by a whole lot of people."

 

[Kuu]

Regardless of the validity of it, I have to wonder what would be the point of a massive global conspiracy to push "for" the scientific acceptance of global warming....? Who benefits? It doesn't seem coherent at all...
To me it sounds like journalistic magic to keep the newspapers rolling...


On the other hand, attempts to discredit global warming seems much more credible... in this case the players and politics seem much more obvious to me, and coherent with other events...



Ultimately all one can do is speculate and be a skeptic.

Either way: never trust a politician, never trust the media.

 

[Polaris]

Cryptonia: I am thirty-nine. I have been working in the field of dentistry, treating my own patients for fifteen years. I have dealt with dentists and specialists for the same amount of time. I have spent as many years observing the sciences in this field. I gave up my career, as I found it scientifically narrow, and studied general science for two years. Currently I am doing a degree in environmental sciences . I always question and test my methods whenever I undertake a new study. I realise the limits of scientific research are great. I also realise there are scientists who's integrity can be questioned, just as there are politicians falling under the same category.

I think we need to work towards better solutions for sustainability, climate change is the cue we needed. Whether it is human induced or not. The climate has always changed throughout Earth's history. It just happens we are in the middle of a changing phase, and human activity may indeed accelerate these changes more.

In a geological perspective, though, it really does not matter what we do. Earth will always recover, although we may not. But I have this perhaps naive belief that we can work towards a solution. I'd rather be part of making a difference than succumb to apathy and speculation.

 

[Polaris]

Regardless of the validity of it, I have to wonder what would be the point of a massive global conspiracy to push "for" the scientific acceptance of global warming....? Who benefits? It doesn't seem coherent at all...
To me it sounds like journalistic magic to keep the newspapers rolling...


On the other hand, attempts to discredit global warming seems much more credible... in this case the players and politics seem much more obvious to me, and coherent with other events...





Either way: never trust a politician, never trust the media.

Yes.

 

[fullerene]

^^these are good points.

well... rather, one of them is a good point. The political/economic advantage to discredit a real global warming far outweigh the political/economic advantage to create one as a lie.

However, it really doesn't take a massive scientific conspiracy to make something like this happen. There are tons of scientific articles published, and... quite frankly, no one is going to care about random other articles outside of their field. Or at least, if they do care enough to read them, they certainly don't care enough to re-check the all the statistics and things themselves. Everyone's busy with their own research, anyway.

Without lots of people checking them, though, there's a pretty good bit to gain as an individual. If you're the scientist who proved that manmade-CO2 emissions were leading to a global apocalypse, and your findings changed the world's emissions policies and led to a safer future (of course, no one could tell what would have happened, so if everyone is convinced you averted disaster, then it's as good as if you really had, for the purposes of recognition/fame/etc), you can bet there's at least a Nobel prize in it for you.

tbh, though, most of the argument I've seen over global warming is done by politicians, and not scientists. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever actually heard a scientist say CO2 emissions were heating the planet up. Granted, I wouldn't have heard much about it, since I'm a physics major and take classes on unrelated topics from Physics professors, but the times that it has come up (talking about major sources of energy, for instance), they've made brief reference to "our carbon footprint" and then moved on without mentioning the climate at all. It could be that they thought it was so obvious that everyone knew what they meant, but it could also be that they just weren't sure about it themselves, and didn't want to say something they couldn't back up.

Still, I've heard a lot more from politicians than scientists on the subject.... and a politician's benefits for such a thing are pretty obvious. Having a "looming threat" you're fighting off (manbearpig!) to seem important, redirecting everyone's attention away from your other power-grabbing policies, etc.



*shrugs*, ok, sorry polaris. I'm in college atm, and I'm consistently baffled by unscientific stories (usually told to us by professors about colleagues... except that most of them do it a little bit) about different peoples' research. I think I left a few of those stories somewhere on this forum... but dunno if I could find em, and I don't have time at all to type them up again (I shouldn't be anywhere near this forum right now, for at least a week). I've never known a physicist, at least, who takes themselves, as scientists, so "seriously" as you did. I do know the Chemists are a little more uptight/have a higher opinion of what they're doing, and the biologists even more so (not sure about doctors/dentists, but they would probably fit in here), but it's most often high school students who are looking forward to going to college in some science field who view it as "pure" as you do.

 

[Polaris]

Hey no reason to be sorry, Cryptonia, I do not take any of this personally

One of the very reasons I gave up my career was the lack of integrity I saw in many operators of the field. Unfortunately, that is inevitable as long as dentistry profits from people's needs. I was expected to "cover up" for other operator's malpractice on a number of occasions, which drove me nearly insane. Thus I have become more jaded and cynical than I wanted regarding certain scientific fields. Yes, I have like you heard the stories and also seen in practice the lack of scientific integrity in some individuals. It is what drives me more towards my ideals, which I still have not given up, and hopefully will not lose in the process of dealing with the many facets of science.

I think you will make a great scientist, Cryptonia.

Edit: And yes, global warming has yet to be linked directly to CO2 emissions, therefore credible scientist are holding their tongues. We only know that CO2 is one of the major contributors to the warming of the atmosphere.

 

[Madoness]

6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails

 

[nemo]

And I thought it was only the media that lied...and perhaps politicians...but never scientists! Moo. I guess I've been too naive.

I hope we do still try to help our planet in any way, whether it be our fault or not, because as someone else said, climate change is real. Global warming is just a part of it. Mooo. Please don't let the politicians at Copenhagen try use this as an excuse to not try though. *grumble*

 

[Polaris]

Interesting video Madoness, here's more:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2766202.htm

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

If you believe what the Associated Press concludes then:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001

 

[Tyria]

Not so open for questions:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11...lists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Not so open for questions:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11...lists-questions-about-climategate/#more-44722

Why would the journalist in question expect some Stanford prof to be able to answer such questions? If the prof never read the emails, he'd be an idiot to try and comment on them.

From FactCheck dot org.:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/