HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Al Gorenot ()
Date: November 27, 2009 06:33PM

Guess it finally caught up with them.:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: November 27, 2009 06:42PM

Ripped from the headlines of YouTube..I think not.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Date: November 27, 2009 07:51PM

Let's see. A group of anti-climate change folks committed a number of felonies by breaching the servers of universities and research institutes to access e-mails from the past 20 years. These same criminals distribute a handful of examples from the millions of e-mails about climate change that passed among these group over the past 20 years, and now we are expected to believe that it is all a fraud. I want to know why the MSM isn't asking about when indictments will be brought against the criminals who broke into the servers?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2009 07:52PM by WashingTone-Locian.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 27, 2009 07:57PM

Because they are pretty sure it was an inside job. If you go back and look through the events (as posted on many sites looking at the issue), the file download occurred a few weeks ago. The file dump was originally detected a few weeks ago when they were moved to a different server. That one was evidently blocked and then the files ended up on a server in Russia which is where they were finally "released". They have been theorizing on a number of sites but the thought is that someone mailed out an account and password to someone to access the CRU site which is how the other files were obtained.

The other issue of course is that many of their files and emails are subject to UK FOIA requests which they had been blocking for various reasons - at this point they really don't have much to stand on as far as evidence of anything to prosecute.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: ThePackLeader ()
Date: November 27, 2009 08:28PM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see. A group of anti-climate change folks
> committed a number of felonies by breaching the
> servers of universities and research institutes to
> access e-mails from the past 20 years. These same
> criminals distribute a handful of examples from
> the millions of e-mails about climate change that
> passed among these group over the past 20 years,
> and now we are expected to believe that it is all
> a fraud. I want to know why the MSM isn't asking
> about when indictments will be brought against the
> criminals who broke into the servers?


Just because you disagree with the means with which the information was obtained, doesn't mean that you shouldn't listen to what has been exposed.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Date: November 27, 2009 08:37PM

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Just because you disagree with the means with
> which the information was obtained, doesn't mean
> that you shouldn't listen to what has been
> exposed.

So if people are so unscrupulous to steal information in the first place, what makes you think they will share the information in e-mails that does reinforce climate change? Consider the source.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Hackr ()
Date: November 27, 2009 11:22PM

Yes, let's just ignore the evidence because it was stolen, like we ignored the
stolen Pentagon Papers, for which the unscrupulous Daniel Ellsberg was tried for
felony charges of theft and conspiracy.

And while we're at it, let's ignore the evidence in the emails that Phil Jones,
head of the CRU, "advocated potentially criminal activity" in attempting to
suppress evidence that disfavored his hypothesis, and should resign from his
post, per global warming true believer George Monbiot writing in the left-wing
Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

The details involving Jones are particulary noteworthy, and potentially damaging,
because the EPA is relying on the CRU in its proposed endangerment finding, which
will say that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming, and thus is subject
to regulation under the Clean Air Act.

If the CRU's research is shown to be tainted - as the hacked data strongly suggests -
then this plan is effectively scuttled.

Thus, for example, in 2005 Phil Jones wrote:
The two MMs [McKitrick, McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for
years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK,
I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Then in August 2009, Jones stated on the CRU webpage:
Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing
series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a
particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available.
Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able
to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series
after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold
the original raw data
but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled
and homogenized) data.
(Quote from permalink at Pielke Jr.s blog)


So in 2005, the data existed but he said that hed delete before releasing it.

In 2009, after multiple FOIA requests, the data no longer exists.

This is data that the UK and US governments paid Jones millions to compile and
safeguard.

Most importantly, if the raw data isn't made available to other researchers,
than the findings distilled from that data are not reproducible.

And if the findings are not reproducible, then it's not science.


Specifically, if its not reproducible and objective, the manipulated
temperature data cant be relied on by the EPA, and indeed, violates the EPAs
own data-quality guidelines and Information Quality Act standards. See Guidelines
for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency
, at pg. 15
(requiring integrity); pg. 20 (requiring reproducibility) (EPA/260R-02008,
October 2002); see also Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines for Ensuring
and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by Federal Agencies
; Republication, 67 FR 8452, 8453 (Feb. 22, 2002)
(requiring utility, objectivity and integrity); id. at 8460 (requiring
integrity and reproducibility).

If it’s real science, then the investigators should WELCOME scrutiny, unless they
are trying to hide something.

Evidently, they are trying to hide something.

Source: http://volokh.com/2009/11/20/climate-scientists-unfiltered/#comments


So what are we dealing with here?

An unscrupulous crook, or a heroic whistle-blower in the mold of Daniel Ellsberg?

We shall see.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: ThePackLeader ()
Date: November 27, 2009 11:46PM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > Just because you disagree with the means with
> > which the information was obtained, doesn't
> mean
> > that you shouldn't listen to what has been
> > exposed.
>
> So if people are so unscrupulous to steal
> information in the first place, what makes you
> think they will share the information in e-mails
> that does reinforce climate change? Consider the
> source.


However, everything which the scientists in question HAVE already released, does somehow support AGW. The e-mails therefore ARE the counterpoint.

You have a point yourself, and yes, we should scrutinize the e-mails, but the scientists exposed here have already admitted to the authenticity of these messages, and they are currently attempting to defend themselves against their own words. Also, if they have e-mails which refute what has so far been exposed, then why not publish them now? If the alleged "hacker" was able to gain access to these e-mails, and they are only "Cherry picked" as the refuting subjects contend, then certainly the defendends can find the supposedly "Non-Cherry Picked" messages and release them in their own defense. Instead, they are themselves attempting to "Cherry pick" against certain wording used within the damning evidence, and in the process, they actually display a tremendous amount of ego and condescension towards the general public (For example, Dr. Michael Mann says that the usage of the word "Trick" is a scientific term, and that the general populace doesn't understand it's actual meaning as referenced in one of the e-mails. What a load of crap, wth does this clown think he is? He obviously assumes that everyone aside from him and his cohorts are complete idiots).

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2009 11:46PM by ThePackLeader.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Date: November 27, 2009 11:48PM

The difference between this and the Pentagon Papers is that the Pentagon Papers were printed in their entirety in the press while we are only seeing drips and drabs of these e-mails being released by unidentified parties with an unknown (but presumed) agenda. I would like to see a more comprehensive inventory of the e-mails, not a handful that appear to say one thing but which might mean something else entirely in their full context.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Hackr ()
Date: November 27, 2009 11:58PM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would like to see a more
> comprehensive inventory of the e-mails, not a
> handful that appear to say one thing but which
> might mean something else entirely in their full
> context.


That's a legitimate inquiry. I've read some analysis to the effect that it
appears to be a true document dump, with no apparent cherry-picking. Whether
that perception will hold up upon further scrutiny of the data, I don't know.

I do think Monbiot's conclusion about Jones needing to resign is indicative that
the evidence cannot be dismissed with a grain of salt, however. Monbiot is a
respected inside player who is very hostile towards global warming skeptics, and
whose integrity, so far as I know, is not questioned by the pro-AGW camp.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: eesh ()
Date: November 28, 2009 12:06AM

Hackr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> That's a legitimate inquiry. I've read some
> analysis to the effect that it
> appears to be a true document dump




Document dump??? Sounds painful. Does that digest like corn?

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Hackr ()
Date: November 28, 2009 12:10AM

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Document dump??? Sounds painful. Does that digest
> like corn?


Kind of. You have to pick through a lot of crap in order to find the "gold nuggets."

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Peter the Penguin ()
Date: November 28, 2009 02:14AM

The global warming "Chicken Littles" will be peddling their shit for a while yet, in spite of these e-mails and, more importantly, in spite of the empirical evidence itself.

But because so many politicians here and abroad are so invested in the myth, it will be with us just like the idea that we need a second federal "stimulus package" because the first one was not big enough to "jump start" the economy.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. LIberals.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: November 28, 2009 09:06AM

Nothing was exposed...the emperical evidence suggests global warming is a serious issue...as if the entire anti-global warming crowd isnt one big lie paid for by the coal industry.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Fruppie ()
Date: November 28, 2009 09:08AM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing was exposed...the emperical evidence
> suggests global warming is a serious issue...as if
> the entire anti-global warming crowd isnt one big
> lie paid for by the coal industry.

That's stupid.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 28, 2009 10:44AM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference between this and the Pentagon
> Papers is that the Pentagon Papers were printed in
> their entirety in the press while we are only
> seeing drips and drabs of these e-mails being
> released by unidentified parties with an unknown
> (but presumed) agenda. I would like to see a more
> comprehensive inventory of the e-mails, not a
> handful that appear to say one thing but which
> might mean something else entirely in their full
> context.

The emails exist in their entirety on a number of sites. I don't think they have blocked them all now - I know the source file was available for download as of 2 days ago in a number of places - 61MB zipped - no viruses. There is no drip drip of release, just what people are focusing on. The link site was referenced in another thread but I am pretty sure it is still active. Again, nothing has been proven as to the information being "stolen" - there is strong belief that someone inside the organization released the information. I am sure if they had a culprit they would have figured out something to release by now - and yet we have heard nothing. The data breach occurred over 4 weeks ago.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 28, 2009 10:50AM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing was exposed...the emperical evidence
> suggests global warming is a serious issue...as if
> the entire anti-global warming crowd isnt one big
> lie paid for by the coal industry.


I am not sure what "emperical" has to do with any of this. The Empirical evidence only shows that there was some warming - but has yet to prove that man had anything to do with it. Matter of fact, in the last 10 years the CO2 concentrations have continued to increase, and yet, temperatures have not. Also, Empirical evidence, and facts, show that CO2 serves as food for the worlds plants, causing them to grow and thrive. The likelihood is that the reason we are seeing CO2 rising is because of all the deforestation that has taken place in the Amazon basin and elsewhere in the world. With all the trees and other plant life that was removed en mass, it makes sense that less CO2 would be absorbed by plants. That would be what the Empirical evidence has shown.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2009 08:13PM by Registered Voter.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 28, 2009 08:28PM

UN IPCC Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf ‘should be barred from the IPCC
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Quote

...
UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.”

Zorita writes that the short answer to that question is: “Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.

Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, Zorita as headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Zorita’s stunning candor continued, noting that scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC climate view were “bullied and subtly blackmailed.”

“In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research,” Zorita explained.
...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: ThePackLeader ()
Date: November 29, 2009 12:16AM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference between this and the Pentagon
> Papers is that the Pentagon Papers were printed in
> their entirety in the press while we are only
> seeing drips and drabs of these e-mails being
> released by unidentified parties with an unknown
> (but presumed) agenda. I would like to see a more
> comprehensive inventory of the e-mails, not a
> handful that appear to say one thing but which
> might mean something else entirely in their full
> context.

Hey, I completely agree. I am still curious though, as to if the other e-mails contradict the ones already released, then why have the scientists in question not released them themselves? Surely they must have access to them.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 29, 2009 11:05AM

A good summary of the three major issues to come out of an analysis of the CRU emails.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Quote

...
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2009 11:06AM by Registered Voter.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Steve Wilhite ()
Date: November 29, 2009 11:13AM

So the Junk Climate Scientists have been caught red handed? Will it make one smidgeon of difference when it comes to the Cap and Trade Tax? Hardly! If the Community Organizer and Chief were any kind of president he would refuse to go to Copenhagen, but he will go and prostrate himself before the world. He will ante up our tax dollars because, well, we're guilty of just about everything according to him. And out illustrious Congressional Leaders, in their fatted glory, will go along with the President. Does anyone really think, bogus science or not, that further "climate change" taxation will not happen? These climate change baffoons have come too far to turn back now. The third world parties to this climate treaty smell blood. Our blood, or money, whichever. How many other taxes have been or are levied against the over burdened people (us) because of bogus beliefs, needs, or entitlements? What the District of Crimminals needs is an enema!

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: A Kidd ()
Date: November 29, 2009 11:17AM

While the emails are amusing, the computer codes from the same hacked data are the true smoking gun. One programmer spent three years trying to replicate Hadley CRU data to no avail. He noted that the data appeared to have been manually and automatically altered at numerous points. While he could get the program to run, he could not produce data from the program.

The fact that Hadley CRU's data is not able to be replicated means that said data does not exist and any paper or data using any of Hadley as a reference or foundation point is now bunk.

Check out the code snippets, analysis and comments on pajamasmedia.com and americanthinker.com.

The code renders the emails an amusing sideshow. The code issues completely sink AGW, relegating it to mere wishful thinking.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: True Believer ()
Date: November 29, 2009 12:52PM

A Kidd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While the emails are amusing, the computer codes
> from the same hacked data are the true smoking
> gun. One programmer spent three years trying to
> replicate Hadley CRU data to no avail. He noted
> that the data appeared to have been manually and
> automatically altered at numerous points. While he
> could get the program to run, he could not produce
> data from the program.
>
> The fact that Hadley CRU's data is not able to be
> replicated means that said data does not exist and
> any paper or data using any of Hadley as a
> reference or foundation point is now bunk.
>
> Check out the code snippets, analysis and comments
> on pajamasmedia.com and americanthinker.com.
>
> The code renders the emails an amusing sideshow.
> The code issues completely sink AGW, relegating it
> to mere wishful thinking.


But the science is SETTLED, dipshit!

Al Gore says so.

And so does realclimate.org, the one bastion of solid, politics-free climate science on the web

And this despite the fact that, yes, it's run by Arlie Schardt, the Press Officer of Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.

So what???

That doesn't mean it's NOT politics-free, or that it's JUST a PR site run by political activists, but rather that's it's NOT BEHOLDEN to fanatical, lying Rethuglicans.

Face it: global warming deniers are on a par with Holocaust deniers.

They shut their eyes to the facts on the basis of blind faith!

I'm not even going to LOOK at those phony, trumped-up emails, or this so-called "code" you blather on about.

What do you know about it, anyway?

Are you a climatologist??

Didn't think so.

REAL climatologists - working scientists - say it's all a tempest in a teapot.

Indeed, ALL of the realclimate.org principals (Gavin Schmidt, Caspar Ammann, Rasmus Benestad, Michael Mann, and Raymond Bradley) are frequent senders and recipients of the STOLEN emails and other documents, so when THEY say the hacked files prove NOTHING, they obviously KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!

Asshat!!

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: A Kidd ()
Date: November 29, 2009 01:08PM

But the science is SETTLED, dipshit!
Al Gore says so.

This is either really clever and sardonic or you are really stupid and gullible. It can't be both.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 29, 2009 04:26PM

And now the truth of the matter.

Climate change data dumped
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Quote

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.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

Which means that anything these guys have published over the last few years will pretty much get a strong rejection from the rest of the scientific community. How can they base anything on peer review when they no longer have any validity to be based upon. The fact that these guys were directing the climate debate all these years shows just how "political" their motivations were. They didn't want to come out and say they didn't have any data all this time so no one could ask any questions? Seems like a pretty lame excuse at this late date. No wonder it is looking like an inside job on the release of information - someone on the inside had come to realize they were nothing more than gypsy fortune tellers at this point.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: November 29, 2009 05:26PM

You grossly over stae the imporatnce of all this...surprise...surprise...surprise.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 29, 2009 05:29PM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You grossly over stae the imporatnce of all
> this...surprise...surprise...surprise.


Vince, the fact that they have destroyed their original data means their conclusions cannot be verified since they cannot trace a progression to them. While there may be other sites or organizations that hold data, these folks established the baselines used by them. So no, I am not overstating anything - but as usual, you are talking out your ass.

No surprise there at all.

EDIT: When people start using terms like "quality controlled" and "homogenized" when talking about scientific data, they are basically saying they have nothing.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2009 05:33PM by Registered Voter.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: November 29, 2009 05:38PM

Ripped from today's leading newspaper..the Washington Post...

"By offering concrete emission standards last week, the US and China have resuscitated global climate talks that were headed for an impasse."

Not exactly the message that you and your "just say no" masters at Fox "news" have been spouting.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 29, 2009 05:47PM

Funny thing about treaties and agreements... they have to be ratified by the Senate.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: November 29, 2009 05:51PM

There is nothing funny about anything in this thread.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny thing about treaties and agreements... they
> have to be ratified by the Senate.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 29, 2009 05:52PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is nothing funny about anything in this
> thread.
>
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Funny thing about treaties and agreements...
> they
> > have to be ratified by the Senate.


Well, Vince was funny - I laughed at his retarded posts. :)

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: November 29, 2009 05:57PM

The little vacation to "document dump" was the highlight of the thread for me but, I take Global Warming so seriously, I couldn't even laugh at that.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: November 29, 2009 06:01PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny thing about treaties and agreements... they
> have to be ratified by the Senate.


really...where does it say that about "agreements"?

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 29, 2009 06:04PM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Funny thing about treaties and agreements...
> they
> > have to be ratified by the Senate.
>
>
> really...where does it say that about
> "agreements"?

You get the point Vince - he can sign up for whatever he wants at Copenhagen, but if he signs a treaty it doesn't matter until it is ratified. As far as agreements go, if he makes any, he will have to come up with some creative ways to make them happen outside of NO cap and trade legislation and a public that is starting to push back strongly on any form of Congressional or Executive mandates.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2009 06:04PM by Registered Voter.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: November 29, 2009 06:09PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Funny thing about treaties and agreements...
> > they
> > > have to be ratified by the Senate.
> >
> >
> > really...where does it say that about
> > "agreements"?
>
> You get the point Vince - he can sign up for
> whatever he wants at Copenhagen, but if he signs a
> treaty it doesn't matter until it is ratified. As
> far as agreements go, if he makes any, he will
> have to come up with some creative ways to make
> them happen outside of NO cap and trade
> legislation and a public that is starting to push
> back strongly on any form of Congressional or
> Executive mandates.


That is as close to an admission of incorrectness as will be had from the RV. The fact is that just about all President have dabbled in the are of signing "agreements". The purpose of these agreements is to document publically..to hold a country accountable to public praise or condemnation...it is a public declaration of the position of the US until another President has the courage to overturn that "agreement". It is a significant event!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 29, 2009 06:10PM

It is meaningless. Get over yourself.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: November 29, 2009 06:13PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is meaningless. Get over yourself.


You lack a knowledge of history...George Bush's refusal to sign previous climate warming agreements was a significant event...so is this. RV...please get out of the way as history passes you and your party of "just say no"....by.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 29, 2009 06:22PM

Vince, the anti-pope for atheists. LOL.

What, you think you are Moses or something? You are so funny. You wear the retard moniker well.

*clap for the Vince*

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 29, 2009 11:03PM

November 28th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/my-top-10-annoyances-in-the-climate-change-debate/

Quote

My Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate
November 28th, 2009

Well, maybe not my top 10…but the first ten that I thought of.

1. The term “climate change” itself. Thirty years ago, the term “climate change” would have meant natural climate change, which is what climate scientists mostly studied before that time. Today, it has come to mean human-caused climate change. The public, and especially the media, now think that “climate change” implies WE are responsible for it. Mother Nature, not Al Gore, invented real climate change.

2. “Climate change denier”. A first cousin to the first annoyance. Again, thirty years ago, “climate change denier” would have meant someone who denied that the Medieval Warm Period ever happened. Or that the Little Ice Age ever happened. What a kook fringe thing to believe that would have been! And now, those of us who still believe in natural climate change are called “climate change deniers”?? ARGHH.

3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. I could go on about this for pages. Yes, it is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published. But as the Climategate e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we skeptics of human-caused climate change have “peers” out there who have taken it upon themselves to block our research from being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of scientific journals who assist in this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of killing the paper. We try not to complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove motivation. I believe the day is approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer review.

4. Appeal to authority. This is the last refuge of IPCC scientists. Even when we skeptics get research published, it is claimed that our research is contradicted by other research the IPCC has encouraged, helped to get funded, and cherry-picked to support its case. This is dangerous for the progress of science. If the majority opinion of scientists was always assumed to be correct, then most major scientific advances would not have occurred. The appeal to authority is also a standard propaganda technique.

5. Unwillingness to debate. I have lectured to many groups where the organizers could not find anyone from the IPCC side who would present the IPCC’s side of the story. I would be happy to debate any of the IPCC experts on the central issues of human-caused versus natural climate change, and feedbacks in the climate system. They know where to find me. (For the most common tactic used by the IPCC in a debate, see annoyance #4.)

6. A lack of common sense. Common sense can be misleading, of course. But when there is considerable uncertainty, sometimes it is helpful to go ahead and use a little anyway. Example: It is well known that the net effect of clouds is to cool the Earth in response to radiant heating by the sun. But when it comes to global warming, all climate models do just the opposite…change clouds in ways that amplify radiative warming. While this is theoretically possible, it is critical to future projections of global warming that the reasons why models do this be thoroughly understood. Don’t believe it just because group think within the climate modeling community has decided it should be so.

7. Use of climate models as truth. Because there are not sufficient high-quality, globally-distributed, and long term observations of climate fluctuations to study and better understand the climate system with, computerized climate models are now regarded as truth. The modelers’ belief that climate models represent truth is evident from the language they use: climate models are not “tested” with real data, but instead “validated”. The implication is clear: if the data do not agree with the models, it must be the data’s fault.

8. Claims that climate models have been tested. A hallmark of a good theory is that it should predict something which, upon further investigation, turns out to be correct. To my knowledge, climate models have not yet forecasted anything of significance. And even if they did, models are ultimately being relied upon to forecast global warming (aka ‘climate change’). As far as I can tell, there is no good way to test them in this regard. And please don’t tell me they can now replicate the seasons quite well. Even the public could predict the seasons before there were climate models. Predicting future warming (or cooling) is slightly more difficult, but not by much: a flip a coin will be correct 50% of the time.

9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased. The IPCC was formed for the explicit purpose of building the case for global warming being our fault, not for investigating the possibility that it is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system. Their accomplices in government have bought off the scientific community for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals.

10. The claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the right thing to do anyway. Oh, really? What if life on Earth (which requires CO2 for its existence) is actually benefiting from more CO2? Nature is always changing anyway…why must we always assume that every single change that humans cause is necessarily a bad thing? Even though virtually all Earth scientists believe this, too, it is not science, but religion. I’m all for religion…but not when it masquerades as science.

Plain speak.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: ThePackLeader ()
Date: November 29, 2009 11:41PM

A Kidd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While the emails are amusing, the computer codes
> from the same hacked data are the true smoking
> gun. One programmer spent three years trying to
> replicate Hadley CRU data to no avail. He noted
> that the data appeared to have been manually and
> automatically altered at numerous points. While he
> could get the program to run, he could not produce
> data from the program.
>
> The fact that Hadley CRU's data is not able to be
> replicated means that said data does not exist and
> any paper or data using any of Hadley as a
> reference or foundation point is now bunk.
>
> Check out the code snippets, analysis and comments
> on pajamasmedia.com and americanthinker.com.
>
> The code renders the emails an amusing sideshow.
> The code issues completely sink AGW, relegating it
> to mere wishful thinking.


I recall that being one of the founding fundamentals of science, in that for anyone to have their experimentation and subsequent findings taken seriously, then they must be able to replicate and repeat their process(es) as many times as deemed necessary. In Chemistry and Biology we used to have to write down EVERY last step of any experiments we took part in, and what we wrote down was scrutinized by the teacher. Even if we achieved the objective, we would still often lose points if a process was written or performed in error. The same is true with most of my Geometry and Algebra classes.

In other words, these "scientists" totally ignored grade school procedures.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Fuckology 101 ()
Date: November 30, 2009 12:07AM

Yes but this is not true in Fuckology! See, in Fuckology "real" data means absolutely nothing, and your opinion, even less. Need a Fuckologist to replicate findings? Replication is not necessary to the Fuckologian profession! So go fuck yourself!

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Where's John??? ()
Date: November 30, 2009 12:09AM

Where's John Cofe??? I'm hungry for some Pancakes!

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 30, 2009 12:21AM

In reading through some of the articles at the ICECAP site (http://icecap.us/index.php) there was an interesting article by Phil Green. He noted that last year Vincent Courtillot, a French geo-magneticist, plotted an average temperature chart for Europe that shows aside from a very cold spell in 1940, temperatures were flat for most of the 20th century, showing no warming while fossil fuel use grew. Then in 1987 they shot up by about 1 C and have not shown any warming since.

Courtillot and a geo-magneticist (Jean-Louis Le Mouel) went to CRU to see if he could get temperature data to correlate with measurements and data that had been taken of the earth's magnetic field but they were denied by Phil Jones.
Quote

...
The Earth’s magnetic field responds to changes in solar output, so geomagnetic measurements are good indicators of solar activity. They thought it would be interesting to compare solar activity with climatic temperature measurements.

Their first step was to assemble a database of temperature measurements and plot temperature charts. To do that, they needed raw temperature measurements that had not been averaged or adjusted in any way. Courtillot asked Phil Jones, the scientist who runs the CRU database, for his raw data, telling him (according to one of the ‘Climategate’ emails that surfaced following the recent hacking of CRU’s computer systems) “there may be some quite important information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging.” Jones refused Courtillot’s request for data, saying that CRU had “signed agreements with national meteorological services saying they would not pass the raw data onto third parties.” (Interestingly, in another of the CRU emails, Jones said something very different: “I took a decision not to release our [meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,” referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre, who helped uncover the flaws in the hockey stick graph.)

Courtillot and his colleagues were forced to turn to other sources of temperature measurements. They found 44 European weather stations that had long series of daily minimum temperatures that covered most of the 20th century, with few or no gaps. They removed annual seasonal trends for each series with a three-year running average of daily minimum temperatures. Finally they averaged all the European series for each day of the 20th century.

...

CRU calls the 1961-1990 the “normal” period and the average temperature of this period it calls the “normal.” It subtracts the normal from each monthly average and calls these the monthly “anomalies.”

...

The decision to consider the 1961-1990 period as ‘normal’ was CRUs. Had CRU chosen a different period under consideration, the IPCC graph would have shown less warming, as discussed in one of the Climategate emails, from David Parker of the UK meteorological office. In it, Parker advised Jones not to select a different period, saying “anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted.” That’s hardly a compelling scientific justification!

It is well known to statisticians that in any but the simplest data sets, there are many possible ways to calculate an indicator using averages. Paradoxically, and counter-intuitively, they often contradict each other. As a simple example of how the same data can be teased to produce divergent results, consider the batting averages of David Justice and Derek Jeter. For each of three years in 1995-97, Justice had a higher batting average than Jeter did. Yet, overall, Jeter had the highest batting average.

In addition to calculating temperature averages for Europe, Courtillot and his colleagues calculated temperature averages for the United States. Once again, their method yielded more refined averages that were not a close match with the coarser CRU temperature averages. The warmest period was in 1930, slightly above the temperatures at the end of the 20th century. This was followed by 30 years of cooling, then another 30 years of warming.
...

EDIT: And of course now, there are conflicting stories that say the scientists at CRU are going to release ALL their information, and in another one, that all the raw data was destroyed a long time ago. Based on the emails I would have to believe the second claim is false, but would provide a convenient cover to NOT release the data.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2009 12:28AM by Registered Voter.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: ThePackLeader ()
Date: November 30, 2009 02:03AM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In reading through some of the articles at the
> ICECAP site (http://icecap.us/index.php) there was
> an interesting article by Phil Green. He noted
> that last year Vincent Courtillot, a French
> geo-magneticist, plotted an average temperature
> chart for Europe that shows aside from a very cold
> spell in 1940, temperatures were flat for most of
> the 20th century, showing no warming while fossil
> fuel use grew. Then in 1987 they shot up by about
> 1 C and have not shown any warming since.
>
> Courtillot and a geo-magneticist (Jean-Louis Le
> Mouel) went to CRU to see if he could get
> temperature data to correlate with measurements
> and data that had been taken of the earth's
> magnetic field but they were denied by Phil
> Jones.
>
> ...
> The Earth’s magnetic field responds to changes in
> solar output, so geomagnetic measurements are good
> indicators of solar activity. They thought it
> would be interesting to compare solar activity
> with climatic temperature measurements.
>
> Their first step was to assemble a database of
> temperature measurements and plot temperature
> charts. To do that, they needed raw temperature
> measurements that had not been averaged or
> adjusted in any way. Courtillot asked Phil Jones,
> the scientist who runs the CRU database, for his
> raw data, telling him (according to one of the
> ‘Climategate’ emails that surfaced following the
> recent hacking of CRU’s computer systems) “there
> may be some quite important information in the
> daily values which is likely lost on monthly
> averaging.” Jones refused Courtillot’s request for
> data, saying that CRU had “signed agreements with
> national meteorological services saying they would
> not pass the raw data onto third parties.”
> (Interestingly, in another of the CRU emails,
> Jones said something very different: “I took a
> decision not to release our station data, mainly
> because of McIntyre,” referring to Canadian Steve
> McIntyre, who helped uncover the flaws in the
> hockey stick graph.)
>
> Courtillot and his colleagues were forced to turn
> to other sources of temperature measurements. They
> found 44 European weather stations that had long
> series of daily minimum temperatures that covered
> most of the 20th century, with few or no gaps.
> They removed annual seasonal trends for each
> series with a three-year running average of daily
> minimum temperatures. Finally they averaged all
> the European series for each day of the 20th
> century.
>
> ...
>
> CRU calls the 1961-1990 the “normal” period and
> the average temperature of this period it calls
> the “normal.” It subtracts the normal from each
> monthly average and calls these the monthly
> “anomalies.”
>
> ...
>
> The decision to consider the 1961-1990 period as
> ‘normal’ was CRUs. Had CRU chosen a different
> period under consideration, the IPCC graph would
> have shown less warming, as discussed in one of
> the Climategate emails, from David Parker of the
> UK meteorological office. In it, Parker advised
> Jones not to select a different period, saying
> “anomalies will seem less positive than before if
> we change to newer normals, so the impression of
> global warming will be muted.” That’s hardly a
> compelling scientific justification!
>
> It is well known to statisticians that in any but
> the simplest data sets, there are many possible
> ways to calculate an indicator using averages.
> Paradoxically, and counter-intuitively, they often
> contradict each other. As a simple example of how
> the same data can be teased to produce divergent
> results, consider the batting averages of David
> Justice and Derek Jeter. For each of three years
> in 1995-97, Justice had a higher batting average
> than Jeter did. Yet, overall, Jeter had the
> highest batting average.
>
> In addition to calculating temperature averages
> for Europe, Courtillot and his colleagues
> calculated temperature averages for the United
> States. Once again, their method yielded more
> refined averages that were not a close match with
> the coarser CRU temperature averages. The warmest
> period was in 1930, slightly above the
> temperatures at the end of the 20th century. This
> was followed by 30 years of cooling, then another
> 30 years of warming.
> ...
>
>
> EDIT: And of course now, there are conflicting
> stories that say the scientists at CRU are going
> to release ALL their information, and in another
> one, that all the raw data was destroyed a long
> time ago. Based on the emails I would have to
> believe the second claim is false, but would
> provide a convenient cover to NOT release the
> data.


Or in fact the original data WAS destroyed, and the newly released "Data" will simply be cooked sets that justify their results.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Date: November 30, 2009 03:48AM

You know what, you hit it right on the money with the word "cooked". Speaking of cooked did anyone catch John Cofe this morning? He made appearance over on the "rocker chic hot or not?" thread. He served up some delicious pancakes for breakfast. If you missed him, go on over to the thread. He told me he was gonna save a dozen or so pancakes just for you. So what are you waiting for? Go get yourself some pancakes and indulge your eyes on some John Cofe. Why are you still reading this, GO! (don't forget get to sqeeze one off to John Cofe. He expects this, that's why he dresses up to prepare your meal as you watch.) I heard he is frying up a side of fancy nuts also. So what are you waiting for?

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: November 30, 2009 09:29AM

I've had John Cofe 38 times this morning! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Maybe you shouldn't stick your head in the microwave so often.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: December 01, 2009 12:53PM

This should end all this stupid talk....

http://www.sphere.com/2009/11/30/prince-albert-of-monaco-forget-e-mails-global-warming-is-for/

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: December 01, 2009 01:41PM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This should end all this stupid talk....
>
> http://www.sphere.com/2009/11/30/prince-albert-of-
> monaco-forget-e-mails-global-warming-is-for/


Yeah, the Prince of Monaco. Another enlightened scientist telling us how wrong we all are. LOL.

Quote

...
"Alas," Albert said, "it is unlikely this meeting will achieve the goals it had hoped for."

Another uninteresting nobody who happens to be wealthy, co-opted by the greens to fund their "charity" work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_II,_Prince_of_Monaco

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: December 01, 2009 04:51PM

Seems to be picking up some steam...

Penn State Will Investigate 'Climategate'
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html
Quote

...
The Penn State administration plans to investigate Climategate and determine if it needs to take further action, the Daily Collegian reports. A little more than a week ago, E-mails exchanged among an English university's climate change researchers were illegally obtained from a server and posted online, the report says.

Climate change opponents say the E-mails indicate that climate change researchers—including Penn State Prof. Michael Mann—exaggerated or fabricated global warming data. And, according to the report, some E-mails indicate that the director of the research unit in question may have contacted researchers and asked them to "delete certain E-mails."

Penn State officials, who will not discuss the matter, are investigating the controversy. If anything requires further inspection, the school will handle it, a spokesman tells the Daily Collegian. A panel will read every E-mail leaked and determine if climate change critics have any ground for their accusations, the report says.
...

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1
Quote

...
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.

The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.
...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Re: Hide the Decline - ClimateGate
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: December 01, 2009 04:54PM

Australia seems to have taken this pretty seriously...

Climate e-mails topple Australian opposition leader
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100018431/climate-e-mails-topple-australian-opposition-leader/
Quote

So the great climate e-mail fiasco has drawn blood – that of an opposition leader, no less, on the other side of the world. Australian Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull has been replaced by a climate sceptic, Tony Abbott, after ten of its most senior politicians resigned over its support for the Government’s plans for fighting global warming. They were, it seems, fired up by the hacked communications from the University of East Anglia (I really don’t want to call it Climategate, adding to the endless succession of ‘gates’ since the original one – and anyway Mark Steyn’s name, ‘warmergate’ is much wittier.)
...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

This forum powered by Phorum.