Read it all here.For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws. Their behavior was brought to light when more than 1,000 emails,and some 3,500 additional files were published online, many of which boasted about how they suppressed hard questions about their data.
The emails, released by an apparent whistle-blower who used the name "FOI," were written by scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. Its scientists are high-profile campaigners for the theory of global warming.The findings from East Anglia have been at the core of policy reports by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC does not do its own research but compiles information relating to climate change. It has declared the evidence that the globe is warming to be "unequivocal," a claim routinely cited by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere as authoritative.
Commentary. I think that global warming science is now in deep trouble. The behavior signaled by these e-mails point to data destruction, fact-cooking, special pleading, selective use of evidence, and downright fraud by principal climate scientists.
While all this sorted out, we should question former Vice-President Al Gore’s own opaqueness to pointed queries about his pet cause.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee should also stand some scrutiny for having awarded their prize to Gore back in 2007 ahead of Irena Sendler (née Krzyżanowska, in Poland commonly referred to as Irena Sendlerowa, 15 February 1910 – 12 May 2008) was a Polish Catholic social worker who served in the Polish Underground and the Żegota resistance organization in German-occupied Warsaw during World War II. Assisted by some two dozen other Żegota members, Sendler saved 2,500 Jewish children by smuggling them out of the Warsaw Ghetto, providing them false documents, and sheltering them in individual and group children's homes outside the Ghetto. (Source)
I suspect that her Catholic identity sank her cause before today’s very liberal Nobel committee, who saw fit to honor Gore, despite the fact that he'd never risked his life for the cause of peace anywhere - his Viet Nam service notwithstanding, since according to his own "Me" Generation, Viet Nam was warmongering at its best.
What I mean is that if the whole global warming thing is based – to put it mildly – on ideologically-driven “science,” lots of powerful people stand to lose quite a bit. They will do everything they can to spin these revelations and save their already-tarnished reputations, “tarnished” no thanks to the major news networks who have studiously avoided to conduct “investigative reporting” on these matters.
Global warming is at risk of becoming the next Piltdown Man. Explanations are due; people should be held accountable and the entire global warming issue reexamined openly by scientists more concerned about science than about their reputations.
Oh, and the entire Nobel Peace Prize committee should be sacked and replaced by people concerned about honoring real achievements and not shams.
Posts
16 comments:
"I think that global warming science is now in deep trouble. The behavior signaled by these e-mails point to data destruction, fact-cooking, special pleading, selective use of evidence, and downright fraud by principal climate scientists."
Really? Can you point exactly to the emails that demonstrate this?
Those are the conclusions I reached after reading those e-mails quoted in the WSJ piece.
I think the whole process has been compromised and since the original raw data has been conveniently destroyed there's no way to reconstruct the experimental model.
I hope that a backup copy of the original raw data appears somewhere to have someone else verify it. This British outfit - is done.
-Theo
@Esceptico: See for yourself:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/understanding-climategate-whos-who-a-video/
Hah! Piltdown Man...good comparison!
I was a bit alarmed to see, in today's Zenit, that Caritas was to have a presence at the UN Conference on climate change in Copenhagen.
I quote: "Lesley-Anne Knight, secretary-general of Caritas, who will be present in Copenhagen, stated, "World leaders must agree to legally binding commitments to cutting greenhouse gases and to paying for the damage that climate change is having on poor communities."
How long will it take to turn the train around?
Here's my recommendation, when reading about science, you should read the people who actually know something about it here and here.
Not some opinion piece in the NYT or random bloggers/videos.
I know you have an emotional investment on this issue. Afterall, it was "real science" against the "kooks" so it must be really uncomfortable for you to find out that individual agendas can vitiate scientific findings and that ideology may distort these findings too. Yes, it appears that even in science there are orthodoxies that can neither be questioned nor deconstructed. To face this truth must be very unsettling to you.
The whole process now is questionable. An independent review is necessary. CRU's own Director has stepped down to allow it to happen.
There's been a lot of hubris among the global warming science crowd. It's time for an independent review. If the data stands the review and all testable, contrary hypothesis given a fair trial and disproven rigurously, I'll accept the findings.
I haven't seen that happen yet, though. "Hey, have faith in us" is no longer reason enough to accept the CRU's findings on climate change.
-Theo
Climate fraudsters and left-wingers won't accept the damaging importance of the climategate documents, and will go on regardeless. It's not their fault, they are just bound by their physical impossibility of admitting error. The only way of fighting this fraud is by incessantly descrediting them.
For a religious group that really dislikes Dan Brown, you sure love those conspiracy theories, secret cabals and James Bond plots.
*sigh*
That's a red herring.
The UN has never pledged to investigate Dan Brown; but it will investigate climategate.
Or so they say. We'll see.
One of the most prestigious science journals has already reviewed the emails and found NOTHING SUSPICIOUS.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you that establishment scientists find no reason to question the findings of other establishment scientists. It's an emperor-has-no-clothes moment now. No one wants to be the first to admit it's all bogus and stupid.
But you're right, when the source code has comments like 'Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline' when fudging numbers and removing important data and promoting data that fits the hypothesis, we shouldn't be concerned. This is certainly "good science", right?
The fact that this author calls realists "denialists" shows a clear bias and unwillingness to consider any conclusion but the one he wishes to be true.
This whole thing is bogus and a big farce and the emails are incredibly damning.
If this idiot-with-a-degree chooses to argue the emperor has no clothes, let him. In a few years when the house has completely crumbled down, he will have written his own dis-accreditation.
One wonders whether YOU have read any of the emails or source code in the released documents, Esceptico. It sounds like you haven't. To read it is to see the truth in which the conspiracy is clearly discussed and planned out and the coverup clearly detailed (supervisors ordering deletion of emails and avoidance of FOI requests, etc).
I have read them, and anyone who has any basic knowledge of science would discard all your accusations immediately.
Yes, there is an embarrassing exchange where they mention deletion of emails, but the science is true.
You denialists are all up in arms because one scientist mentioned using a "trick" in his research, which is nothing unusual but to the layman appears as a cheat.
In any case, if there were damning evidence, do you think this small group of scientists composes all of the scientific community? Do you think the elimination of these papers would damange the more than 2,500 other PUBLISHED AND PUBLIC RESEARCH PAPERS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE ONLINE?
The only pressure that scientists are feeling regarding climate change comes from political pressure. There is no, I repeat, NO scientific pressure regarding the topic. All of the scientific research points to it as a a true occurrence.
You should base your decisions on the facts, not your political or religious ideology. You sure don't question cardiovascular research, or the Theory of Relativity, right? Because it doesn't contradict your religious or political dogmas. But when science and facts (Darwin or Climate Change) go against your beliefs, you're quick to question "big bad science".
In any case, if climate change turns out to be a big farce, all you can blame me for is excessive recycling, using less oil and helping the environment. Now, if you're wrong, then make sure to give your grandchildren my email, so they can thank ME, not you, for trying to keep what is left of the world a good place to live, contrary to all you denialists.
Since you religious types love Pascal's Wager so much and throw it in my face all the time, I'm going to apply what I call the Climate Wager. What if you're wrong? Isn't it better to play it safe than to wait and see for the earth to end up the worst?
I have read them, and anyone who has any basic knowledge of science would discard all your accusations immediately.
I have a basic understanding of science, even if you insist that I do not. That's because if you were to admit it, then you would be forced to reassess your conclusions on this and several other subjects. But you can't be bothered because even you have an agenda: "religious types" are always wrong, even when they are not.
Yes, there is an embarrassing exchange where they mention deletion of emails, but the science is true.
It's not merely the deletion of e-mails, but also of defaming those who hold contrary views, to include stopping them from publishing them in reputable journals, while also labeling other journals as disreputable.
The deletion of the original raw data is also unconsciounable. Intense pressure is being applied to governments around the world to dedicate money, resources, and people to tackle climate change. Yet now we find out that not all facts may be on the table because of active suppression of alternate points of view that for all we know, may necessitate the shifting of money, people, and resources to other areas now deemed irrelevant or unessential.
But you can't see that because you have no inkling whatsoever as to how these manifold, interlocking processes work, wedded as you are to your single worldview. Sorry, but I am skeptical of you and your viewpoint at this time. I want to see a healthier debate between alternate viewpoints. The testing of alternate hypotheses: that's where real science is made. Please, spare us your lessons and apply yourself to them.
In any case, if climate change turns out to be a big farce, all you can blame me for is excessive recycling, using less oil and helping the environment. Now, if you're wrong, then make sure to give your grandchildren my email, so they can thank ME, not you, for trying to keep what is left of the world a good place to live, contrary to all you denialists.
So in the end, this is all about you?
I thought so.
-Theo
No... its about your children and grandchildren and subsequent generations.
No... its about your children and grandchildren and subsequent generations.
Huh. So there seem to be absolute moral imperatives after all.
-Theo
Have you looked at the available data?
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/12/14/data-fiction-and-politics/
Post a Comment