More on Climategate - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 11-23-2009, 11:09 PM

Well over in Britain this is a big topic although the MSM in the US is doing their best to ignore the issue.

Links to some article about the latest developments, Steyn on what the Brit papers are reporting, Phil Jones may end up taking the fall, and even the settled science guys are sounding very unsure of themselves:

Cooling on Phil - Mark Steyn - The Corner on National Review Online

Tim Flannery (a settled science guy/ IPCC copntributor:

Quote:

We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.

So the modelers don't really get it.. the models predictions don't match reality (reality wins in real science), and those who brought up the FACT that the earth is cooling are right and the denials from the climate crisis crowd are wrong (perhaps an outright LIE?).

From Climate audit, via "watts up with that' blog how the Hockey trick helped the Hickey stick scam:

Mike’s Nature Trick Watts Up With That?

Quote:

When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).

Remember this graph is being used by the IPCC to push their climate crisis agenda. Looks like fraud. McKittrick is right Mann is a liar.

Then there are the code comments (more than emails were released code was also released). The code comments , show data was left out to give the desired results:

CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story Watts Up With That?

Quote:

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.

Finally (for today at least) an admission from a journalist who promoted climate alarmism about the emails.

Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology Watts Up With That?

The following are from a blog and not commercial source.

Quote:

t’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Quote:

There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

He fudges that this is just fraud by 3 or 4 scientist, but even these admissions are startling. Do you realize how much of our money has been spent on this fraud?

A good summary on where we stand from IBD:

Investors.com - E-Mails Of Climate Researchers Buttress Case Of Warming Fraud

From Powerline which has done a great job reviewing the emails.

Investors.com - E-Mails Of Climate Researchers Buttress Case Of Warming Fraud

This link concerns emails talking about destroying emails and data that might undermine the alarmist claims rather than release the data under Britain's FOIA.

***patsfan13*** · 11-24-2009, 04:49 AM

From the WSJ today:

Quote:

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

What the Global Warming Emails Reveal - WSJ.com

***Harry Boy*** · 11-24-2009, 07:27 AM

Has "The Bellowing Boob" Gore had anything to say on this yet?

***Patters*** · 11-24-2009, 07:39 AM

This strikes me as nothing. In the course of email discussions over a number of yeras, a lot of thoughts and ideas are bandied about and issues are raised. If anything, it shows the integrity of the scientific community, namely that they raised a lot of issues before coming to conclusions. I'd love to see the private emails of skeptics to see if there's such honest debate. I think not.

These desperate attempts by the skeptics to invade the privacy of the scientific community are largely debunked at realclimate.org. It's sad that the skeptics should have to resort to illegal activity.

RealClimate

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

***patsfan13*** · 11-24-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

This strikes me as nothing. In the course of email discussions over a number of yeras, a lot of thoughts and ideas are bandied about and issues are raised. If anything, it shows the integrity of the scientific community, namely that they raised a lot of issues before coming to conclusions. I'd love to see the private emails of skeptics to see if there's such honest debate. I think not.

These desperate attempts by the skeptics to invade the privacy of the scientific community are largely debunked at realclimate.org. It's sad that the skeptics should have to resort to illegal activity.

RealClimate

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

There was no debate indeed they were trying to blackball people who submitted scientific papers that idsagreed with their positions.

They spoke of deastroying data covered by Freedom of Information Request.

They refused to supply copies of data to people who weren't members of their 'cabal'.

They also as documented in the code samples cited about truncated datasets to get the results they want.

Real Climate is an interesting source since the people involved with that site are the same people committing fraud. This is like asking J Gotti Jr about the validity of describing the mafia as a criminal orgaization.

atomdomb · 11-24-2009, 08:39 AM

More lying douchebags get caught lying.

***Patters*** · 11-24-2009, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atomdomb

More lying douchebags get caught lying.

The only ones who feel that way are those on the losing side of the argument. The "scandal" doesn't even seem to be getting much play from the likes of Fox News or Drudge, perhaps because it's based on illegal activities, and frankly when the skeptics resort to crime to try to score points, it makes them look bad. Not only are facts against them, but now they have an ethical deficit as well (other than the ethical deficit of being largely funded by the oil companies). Again, there's nothing in those emails accept the ordinary banter and some tacky and ambiguous comments typical of email exchanges.

***Patters*** · 11-24-2009, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

There was no debate indeed they were trying to blackball people who submitted scientific papers that idsagreed with their positions.

They spoke of destroying data covered by Freedom of Information Request.

What are you talking about? Was any data destroyed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

They refused to supply copies of data to people who weren't members of their 'cabal'.

If the skeptics don't have the data, why do you believe them? To my knowledge, data is provided in peer reviews and much of the data is online.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

They also as documented in the code samples cited about truncated datasets to get the results they want.

Where is it documented that they truncated datasets to "get the results they want"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Real Climate is an interesting source since the people involved with that site are the same people committing fraud. This is like asking J Gotti Jr about the validity of describing the mafia as a criminal orgaization.

I imagine this issue must be as frustrating to you, as the big defeat of Creationism was to Creationists. Even using illegally obtained information doesn't seem to be helping the side of the skeptics any.

Real World · 11-24-2009, 09:11 AM

This is/was the biggest ponzi scheme of all time. I'm slightly hopefull that the economic state of the planet, as well as this hacked data, will help cool (pun intended) this money grab. This has never been about the environment. Just follow the money aspect of it all, and you realize that fact rather quickly. When you begin to get into global taxes, passed over remedies (nuclear power for example), and exemptions for significant poluters simply because they aren't quite a "have" yet, you can only come to one conclusion. It's all BS.

***Patters*** · 11-24-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

This is/was the biggest ponzi scheme of all time. I'm slightly hopefull that the economic state of the planet, as well as this hacked data, will help cool (pun intended) this money grab. This has never been about the environment. Just follow the money aspect of it all, and you realize that fact rather quickly. When you begin to get into global taxes, passed over remedies (nuclear power for example), and exemptions for significant polluters simply because they aren't quite a "have" yet, you can only come to one conclusion. It's all BS.

Actually, many of those who believe in global warming support nuclear solutions and the proposed solutions to global warming are what's in the political sphere, because it has to be negotiated between political entities. The science remains true, and it's difficult to imagine that thousands upon thousands of scientists are engaged in some sort of Ponzi scheme. In fact, that seems like an absurd conspiracy theory. If your limiting your point to the way politicians are attempting to capitalize on global warming, well, then, both sides can obviously make the same point, since doing nothing about global warming will protect old money interests and doing something helps new money interests.