Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails

Dec 03, 2009 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn't change the fact that the world is warming.

The e-mails from a British university's climate center were obtained by computer hackers and posted online about two weeks ago. Climate change skeptics contend the messages reveal that researchers manipulated and suppressed data and stifled dissent, and conservative bloggers are dubbing it "Climategate."

In the first Capitol Hill airing of the issue, House Republicans Wednesday read excerpts from at least eight of the e-mails, saying they showed the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science on warming is settled. One e-mail from 2003 was by John Holdren, then of Harvard University and now the president's science adviser.

The exploding controversy led Phil Jones to step aside as head of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, the source of the e-mail exchanges. The university is investigating the matter. Penn State University also is looking into e-mails by its own researcher, Michael Mann. House Republicans asked for a separate hearing or investigation into the issue, but were rebuffed by Democrats.

"These e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension and profit," said U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.

The science is proper and this is about a small fraction of research on the issue, said Holdren, a physicist who has studied climate change.

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the .

The e-mails don't negate or even deal with data from both NOAA and NASA, which keep independent climate records and show dramatic warming, Lubchenco told members of the House committee.

The hearing was supposed to focus on the latest in global warming scientific findings. Lubchenco even attempted a high school chemistry lesson with two quick experiments at the witness table. Donning one rubber glove, she demonstrated how adding carbon dioxide to water made it more acidic and said that is what's now happening in the world's oceans. Then she put chalk in acidic water compounds and showed it dissolving a bit, to demonstrate what will happen eventually to vital sea life.

But her bubble-inducing experiments were ignored in favor of the more explosive e-mails.

Among the messages that Sensenbrenner read was one from Jones, the East Anglia scientist, in which he wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends. Holdren responded that the word "trick" did not mean manipulation of data, but about a "clever way" to tackle a problem. Another Jones' e-mail read, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

Defending the scientists, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said somehow the e-mails aren't stopping the Arctic from warming, the oceans from getting more acidic, and glaciers from melting. He sarcastically asked Holdren and Lubchenco if they were part of a global conspiracy that even included fictional movie villain organizations. Holdren, played along, saying he was not.

After complaining of "scientific fascism" and "scientific McCarthyism," Sensenbrenner chastised Holdren for his 2003 e-mail, when he was at Harvard, that dealt with skeptics by "calling them names."

What the e-mail, not read by Sensenbrenner, showed was that Holdren used ironic quotes around the word "Harvard" in describing two of his colleagues who are global warming skeptics. Holdren also had forwarded to other scientists an article he described as "for your entertainment" in which he was quoted as saying the two skeptics were "wrong." Holdren defended his e-mail.

Sensenbrenner attacked the work of Penn State's Mann, who is frequently brought up in the communications. Mann is the author of what is called the "hockey stick" theory, first described in the late 1990s. It suggested that the past 50 years had been the hottest in several centuries, if not 1,000 years, and that man-made global warming was to blame. That research was so controversial that the National Academy of Sciences studied the work in depth; it was used in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary on global warming.

Sensenbrenner said the 2006 National Academy study showed Mann's hockey stick was incorrect and that Mann's theory was discredited. But Holdren said the NAS study had quibbles with Mann's methods but agreed with his results.

The chairman of the Academy of Science panel, Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Gerald North, confirmed in an interview Wednesday that Holdren was right, not Sensenbrenner.

"The conclusions that we came to were essentially the same as the hockey stick" theory that Mann proposed, North told The Associated Press. North said even if Jones, Mann and others had done no research at all, the world would still be warming and scientists would still be able to show it.

---

On the Net:

House committee on global warming: http://globalwarming.house.gov/

Sensenbrenner's opening statement, which includes some excerpts: http://tinyurl.com/gopwarm

2006 National Academy of Science study: http://tinyurl.com/nasmann

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: What I learned from debating science with trolls

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

Dec 01, 2009

(AP) -- The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the ...

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

Nov 23, 2009

(AP) -- A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's ...

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate

Nov 21, 2009

(AP) -- Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online - stoking debate over whether some scientists have ...

Obama looking at cooling air to fight warming

Apr 08, 2009

(AP) -- Tinkering with Earth's climate to chill runaway global warming - a radical idea once dismissed out of hand - is being discussed by the White House as a potential emergency option, the president's ...

Recommended for you

What I learned from debating science with trolls

23 hours ago

I often like to discuss science online and I'm also rather partial to topics that promote lively discussion, such as climate change, crime statistics and (perhaps surprisingly) the big bang. This inevitably ...

Activists urge EU to scrap science advisor job

Aug 19, 2014

Nine major charities urged the European Commission on Tuesday to scrap a science advisor position it says puts too much power over sensitive policy into the hands of one person.

More to a skilled ear in music

Aug 15, 2014

The first pilot study in Australia to give musicians the skills and training to critically assess music by what they hear rather than what they see begins this month at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music.The study aims to ...

User comments : 43

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gunslingor1
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2009
Note the massive media coverage of the controversial scandal. I say contraversal because the intent of the statements in the emails depends highly on the context, which is obviously being left out of the media coverage. In fact, barring a few sentences here and there that really add nothing to the issue, the only real content posted from the emails on all these news reports is that of the word "trick" without the full context or even the sentence in which it appeared, such as above. Is it a mathematical trick? Fine, I use those all the time to solve problems. Download the emails and read as much as you can as I have done; it is obviously a manufactured scandal.

Again, note the coverage; yet, what coverage have we seen in regards to Bush's climate-gate schandal which is more diffinitive and obvious. For
background on Bush's climate gate scandal, see:
http://www.heatis...hod=Full
Loodt
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2009
It is not just the emails, but the comments by the - let's assume tired - programmer that points to the shambles and trickery.

Mann's hockey stick graph has been shown to be an out and out lie and hoax. the fact that Gerald North, chairman of the local darts club, doesn't think so is not news at all. The AGW comrades can drag out any number of parrots to repeat their falsehoods and it won't make it true. It was warmer in the MWP than now, stop denying that fact!
croghan27
3 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2009
It is not just the emails, but the comments by the - let's assume tired - programmer that points to the shambles and trickery.

Mann's hockey stick graph has been shown to be an out and out lie and hoax. the fact that Gerald North, chairman of the local darts club, doesn't think so is not news at all. The AGW comrades can drag out any number of parrots to repeat their falsehoods and it won't make it true. It was warmer in the MWP than now, stop denying that fact!


Indeed, it is such a lie and a hoax that the National Academy of Sciences endorces it.
http://www8.natio...ID=11676
defunctdiety
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2009
The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus

Actually that's precisely what the emails do.
that warming is largely a result of human activity

Wait...since when has it been anything BUT CO2? I thank you for your back pedaling, but I doubt that small concession will help you sleep at night.
it doesn't change the fact that the world is warming
...
data from both NOAA and NASA...show dramatic warming

They are glossing over the fact that the crux of the biscuit is whether it is caused by man, and whether therefore we can do anything about it.

So many people embroiled, such a huge web of lies and deception for profit, will the scientific community permit such an embarrassment or will they simply sweep under the rug the most atrocious scientific fraud of human history?

No one involved on the side of AGW can allow themselves to be honest now, they've gone too far, they're all in.

It is 100% up to the People to call their bluff.
Loodt
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2009
the National Academy of Sciences and Marvel Comix?

Keep in mind that Nazi Scientists published 'peer-reviewed' papers on topics such as 'The shape of the nose and eyelashes as reference points in determining the true Aryan race' and that didn't mean a thing. We know now that we are all decendants from the seven sisters of Eve who migrated from Africa 70k years ago!

The 'peer-reviewed' mantra of the scientific marxists have been proved hollow, and the National Academy of Science means nothing. Fraud is fraud, Enron or WMD or AGW, no difference!
christian_physicist
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2009
It really amazes me that Obama even appointed Holdren as science advisor when global warming is such a scientific focus of his administration. Remember that in 1971 Holdren said that an ICE AGE was likely because of human activity. Holdren! Not Newsweek magazine, whom global warming skeptics also like to cite, but the very man who, today, in the Obama administration, says we will soon experience catastrophic global WARMING because of human activity. Well, he was wrong then, so how can he be so certain he isn't wrong now? Surely Obama could have found someone without this credibility problem.
Loodt
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2009
The 'peer-reviewed' mantra of the scientific Marxists has been proved a farce; keep in mind that Nazi Scientists published 'peer-reviewed' papers on topics such as 'The shape of the nose and slant of the eyelashes as reference points in determining the true Aryan race' and that didn't mean a thing. We know now that we are all descendants from the seven sisters of Eve who migrated from Africa 70k years ago!

Treat - and dismiss - the IPCC documentation and AGW arguments with the contempt it deserves!
Caliban
3.1 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2009
That's right, people- keep ignoring the overwhelming evidence that supports the very likely scenario of anthropogenic global warming. While you do that, everyone else will figure out how to make money-and tons of it- finding and implementing a solution. As an added bonus, perhaps these tree-huggin' liberals will find a way to divest you of your hard-earned dollars and give them away to undeserving third-worlders.
dtxx
Dec 03, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2009
Isn't it interesting how the deck of cards are falling. First the ACORN scandle is ignored by ABC, NBC, CNN,and ACORN threatens legal action agaist those that exposed illigal actions, then a director leaves Planned Parenthood and she is threated with legally action but CNN, ABC, NBC ignores the story, then AGW Climategate is exposed, ABC, NBC, CNN, ignore the story, and Barbra Boxer wants to investigate the leakers

http://thehill.co...al-probe

I'm supprised that someone isn't threatening Ben Stein for his movie against evolution.

Then there is embryonic stem cell reseach that has fallen flat on its face with some bogus research results.

Research needs to be taken back to pure research without bias and away from special interest groups. We need to restore trust in it, as only pure reseach can solve real problems.
UriBlago
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2009
defunctdiety says AWG is "the most atrocious scientific fraud of human history?"

AGW is definitely a close second, but I believe that title belongs squarely to evolution. I can't begin to list all the things I was taught about evolution during HS and college that have now been totally debunked! Here are just two recent examples:

"Research team finds important role for junk DNA" (Physorg, May 20, 2009)

"Evolution of the appendix: A biological 'remnant' no more" (Physorg, August 20, 2009)

I especially like this quote from the appendix article" "Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," says William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke and the senior author of the study. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"
ruebi
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2009
So, if you believe that "global warming is just a scandal" it must be completely irrational to invest in "smart" technologies. How to keep 5 billion people from stampeding themselves to death? Kill them before they kill you or make them afraid of someone else or something else. If I need to wear 10,000 sunblock or used thousands of those little hand warmers doesn't change the fact that the earth is polluted... and we did it on our own.
marjon
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2009
So, if you believe that "global warming is just a scandal" it must be completely irrational to invest in "smart" technologies. How to keep 5 billion people from stampeding themselves to death? Kill them before they kill you or make them afraid of someone else or something else. If I need to wear 10,000 sunblock or used thousands of those little hand warmers doesn't change the fact that the earth is polluted... and we did it on our own.


So the solution is to destroy the world economy?

BTW, who really invests in more efficient technology? Those who have an economic incentive to save and make money. No government has any incentive to save money and be efficient.
Gammakozy
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2009
Even if the "global warming" in question was true, and even if it was caused by man, why would anyone trust the current bunch of socialist alarmists to fix it. Discovering a problem and finding the solution to fix it are two different things. Creating a phony problem and proposing phony self-serving, solutions is blatant manipulation. Every issue championed by liberals has disguised motives and their solutions have failed. Consider the war on poverty, sex education, AIDS education, education reforms, income redistribution, subprime mortgages, world peace, etc., etc. However, each plan has succeeded in the real goal; namely to buy the votes and loyalty of those who are conned to believe that the liberal politicians care about them. So it is with the global warming hoax. The solutions proposed will fail to solve the alleged problem but will succeed in advancing the purposes of the left's agenda, which is to gain power at all cost and to control everything and everybody.
COCO
1 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2009
we have too many people - as evidenced by the traffic here - the government lied about 911 - WMD and now climate is changing?? - wow - I thought it was always this way - Amerika - land of the naive and obsese - reap the whirlwind ignorant ones!
gunslingor1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2009
defunctdiety says AWG is "the most atrocious scientific fraud of human history?"

AGW is definitely a close second, but I believe that title belongs squarely to evolution.......


Lololol...

As expected, would be debunkers of human induced destabalizing climate change are also trying to debunk evolution. I think it is time to truely quantify this debate to a war between the scientific method and belief or religion.

I am interested to hear your explaination for the alternative to evolution and what scientific evidence you have.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2009
I am interested to hear your explaination for the alternative to evolution and what scientific evidence you have.


Maybe you could answer why those who are critical of evolution have their careers ruined?
It is not that they are just laughed at by peers, they are forced out of their jobs for even suggesting alternatives.
Recall the folks that proposed plate tectonics were once scorned.
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2009
marjoin,

Maybe you could answer why those who are critical of evolution have their careers ruined?


Probably because they base it on nothing but belief or religion. Any scientist who does that without stating such is not a scientist and should be let go. If they say "No, evolution is not right because I beleive it isn't" then that's fine.

If they say "evolution is not right" without anything evidence or proof, then they should be fired. science is about developing theories based on evidence and fact. A theory based on belief is just a religion, and religion should always be left out of science. If religion can be proved, it ceases to be religion and becomes science and/or phylosophy. Hey, these are just my opinions though.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2009
As expected, would be debunkers of human induced destabalizing climate change are also trying to debunk evolution. I think it is time to truely quantify this debate to a war between the scientific method and belief or religion.
Let's not take the rantings of one person to be the opinion of an entire cadre of people.

Otherwise that would mean that you believe the only way to fix the problem is to paint everything white and stop wearing manufactured clothes even in the winter while eating only vegetables, as Obama Science Advisor Stephen Chu believes and stated over a steak dinner at the White House.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2009
marjoin,

Maybe you could answer why those who are critical of evolution have their careers ruined?


Probably because they base it on nothing but belief or religion. Any scientist who does that without stating such is not a scientist and should be let go. If they say "No, evolution is not right because I beleive it isn't" then that's fine.

If they say "evolution is not right" without anything evidence or proof, then they should be fired. science is about developing theories based on evidence and fact. A theory based on belief is just a religion, and religion should always be left out of science. If religion can be proved, it ceases to be religion and becomes science and/or phylosophy. Hey, these are just my opinions though.


What if a respected researchers has a theory, based on observations, that there is a design, an order to the universe. He then proposes such order is not by chance. Why ban such research?
gunslingor1
5 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2009
What if a respected researchers has a theory, based on observations, that there is a design, an order to the universe. He then proposes such order is not by chance. Why ban such research?


That research is not banded. I look forward to reading it if I ever come across it, but I haven't; I've only seen the illogical arguements such as "well, if we all evolved from monkeys, then where do the monkeys come from?". I hear these statements that clearly show the person has no idea what evolution really means and they wont even look at the science because it infringes on there belief (and they cant have that because, if they are convinced otherwise, they wont get into heaven).

I personnally do believe that the universe shows signes of creation, but not by magical mysterious methods, rather by definition of a set of physical rules (particularlly based on survival of the fittest in a complex massive system[eg atoms, stars, planets, and life]) and a really long time line.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2009


That research is not banded. I look forward to reading it if I ever come across it, but I haven't; I've only seen the illogical arguements such as "well, if we all evolved from monkeys, then where do the monkeys come from?". I hear these statements that clearly show the person has no idea what evolution really means and they wont even look at the science because it infringes on there belief (and they cant have that because, if they are convinced otherwise, they wont get into heaven).

I personnally do believe that the universe shows signes of creation, but not by magical mysterious methods, rather by definition of a set of physical rules (particularlly based on survival of the fittest in a complex massive system[eg atoms, stars, planets, and life]) and a really long time line.


Watch Ben Stein's movie, Expelled.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2009
What if a respected researchers has a theory, based on observations, that there is a design, an order to the universe. He then proposes such order is not by chance. Why ban such research?

Who has banned it?

One can say with 100% certainty that the Universe is ordered in some way, however, you cannot say with any certainty that the universe is SPECIFICALLY ordered to generate life.

Hell, life is simply a complex array of aqueous carboxyl chemical reactions. If anything you could say life is liquid fire.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2009
What if a respected researchers has a theory, based on observations, that there is a design, an order to the universe. He then proposes such order is not by chance. Why ban such research?

Who has banned it?

One can say with 100% certainty that the Universe is ordered in some way, however, you cannot say with any certainty that the universe is SPECIFICALLY ordered to generate life.

Hell, life is simply a complex array of aqueous carboxyl chemical reactions. If anything you could say life is liquid fire.

Watch the movie.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2009
"Expelled uncovers the persecution of educators and scientists who are being denied tenure, and even fired in some cases, for their belief in the evidence for design in nature, challenging the idea that life is a result of random chance and evolution."

"Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist expelled from his position. "

http://creation.c...rwinists
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2009
Marjon,

I have watched the movie. The movie is no better than a biased Michael Moore-esque look at the topic.

Were you aware that Mr. Steinberg inappropriately used his postition as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington to publish his paper?

The NCSE didn't start a smear campaign, they removed him from his post for violating the ethics behind the peer-review process.

That sounds more like AGW than ID research.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2009
Marjon,

I have watched the movie. The movie is no better than a biased Michael Moore-esque look at the topic.

Were you aware that Mr. Steinberg inappropriately used his postition as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington to publish his paper?

The NCSE didn't start a smear campaign, they removed him from his post for violating the ethics behind the peer-review process.

That sounds more like AGW than ID research.


The issue remains regarding peer review.

"Despite a lack of evidence that peer review works, most scientists (by nature a skeptical lot) appear to believe in peer review. It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith," says Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and now CEO of UnitedHealth Europe and board member of PLoS. "It's very unscientific, really."
http://www.the-sc...y/23061/
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2009
And that's relevant to creationism how? The reason why the peer-review process is unscientific is exemplified by your pet scientist's actions with his paper on ID. Using his inability to follow the porcess as the reasoning behind why the process isn't acceptable is called intellectual dishonesty.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2009
And that's relevant to creationism how? The reason why the peer-review process is unscientific is exemplified by your pet scientist's actions with his paper on ID. Using his inability to follow the porcess as the reasoning behind why the process isn't acceptable is called intellectual dishonesty.


Peer review is considered to be a 'belief', unscientific, by scientists themselves.
You reject ID as a belief but not peer review. Not very consistent.
freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Dec 10, 2009
Typical of the AGW believers. If people don't believe, call them deniers, stop them from publishing, etc. Facts in the way, delete them. Losing the arguments, switch the argument to creationism.

Creationism has nothing to do with AGW! Stick with AGW and how the belief is crumbling. Watch how ABC, NBC, CNN and other leftist news organizations ignore climategate. AGW arguments are now as bad or worse than Al Gores poetry.

For those debating AGW true believers, don't get suckered into debating other topics.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2009
Typical of the AGW believers. If people don't believe, call them deniers, stop them from publishing, etc. Facts in the way, delete them. Losing the arguments, switch the argument to creationism.

Creationism has nothing to do with AGW! Stick with AGW and how the belief is crumbling. Watch how ABC, NBC, CNN and other leftist news organizations ignore climategate. AGW arguments are now as bad or worse than Al Gores poetry.

For those debating AGW true believers, don't get suckered into debating other topics.


The real issue serious scientists should be concerned about is the integrity of the process.
As Reagan said, trust but verify. If I can't verify, I don't trust.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2009
Read the emails for yourself. Found at junkscience.com (not at a lame stream media source).
http://www.eastan...ndex.php
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2009
The real issue serious scientists should be concerned about is the integrity of the process.
As Reagan said, trust but verify. If I can't verify, I don't trust.

And that would be peer review. Then again, you're rallying agaist it above. So what exactly is your stance?
freethinking
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2009
but... if no matter how well you research something, no matter how much the proof you have, the church of AGW prevents you from getting peer reviewed (as shown in their emails) then what... Is AGW proven???
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2009
The real issue serious scientists should be concerned about is the integrity of the process.
As Reagan said, trust but verify. If I can't verify, I don't trust.

And that would be peer review. Then again, you're rallying agaist it above. So what exactly is your stance?

Are math proofs 'peer reviewed' or validated?

If other scientific fields want to be taken seriously, they will have to validate their claims, which seems to me, much more involved than 'peer review'.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2009
Are math proofs 'peer reviewed' or validated?

If other scientific fields want to be taken seriously, they will have to validate their claims, which seems to me, much more involved than 'peer review'.

A math proof wouldn't require peer review because it's already solved. There is no longer a problem.

However, the progression to get the math proof is peer reviewed.

You don't seem to understand what the peer review process is. I hope you didn't go by Ben Stein's definition.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2009
Are math proofs 'peer reviewed' or validated?

If other scientific fields want to be taken seriously, they will have to validate their claims, which seems to me, much more involved than 'peer review'.

A math proof wouldn't require peer review because it's already solved. There is no longer a problem.

However, the progression to get the math proof is peer reviewed.

You don't seem to understand what the peer review process is. I hope you didn't go by Ben Stein's definition.

What independent source checked Mann's data and program that made his hockey stick? The only independent source to do so was MacIntyre and McKitrick. 'Peers' don't do so because they don't have time, or the inclination or the capability or all of the above.
"Despite a lack of evidence that peer review works, most scientists (by nature a skeptical lot) appear to believe in peer review. It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith"
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2009
Source for "Is Peer Review Broken?"
http://www.freere...77/posts
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Dec 13, 2009
They seriously need to stop looking at just the emails and look through the documents, too! The documents are what makes the emails so much more damning as to what they have done.

They have claimed consensus when members of the review panel flat-out stated that the figures were fraudulent. The public has not been made aware of this.

They have poo-pooed claims regarding the Medieval Warm Period when data on their own servers confirms the time period. They have dismissed others' data when even their own data helps confirm the results of others' labors regarding this being a more favorable time for trees in now icey climates than today's period of "relative warmth."

What is so dangerous about this information is that it shows that even in lower CO2 levels than today the climate around at least the Northern Hemisphere was warmer and more favorable to plant life further north than conditions today.

Obama's advisors need to regroup and seriously rethink their strategy.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 14, 2009
Boy oh boy. this definitely isn't the best forum for these types of conversations.

Anyway, all that matter is this, and I think we can all agree on it:
1. There is the posibility of AWG. It may very well be accurate or at least possible.
2. We have a solution to get off fossil fuels. Why bother? Well, the danger of AWG for one, acid rain, mercury, cancer, energy independence etc. which I doubt anyone here would deny, and because the solution is based on modern technology, not 1920's technology.
3. The solution hasn't changed in 40-50 years and yet, we see no implementation. Why?

Who has the most to fear regarding these established technologies. Fossil producers in my opinion, and yes, they just happen to be one of the largest campaign contributers and lobbying groups in DC.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Dec 14, 2009
Who has the most to fear regarding these established technologies. Fossil producers in my opinion, and yes, they just happen to be one of the largest campaign contributers and lobbying groups in DC.


Try this conspiracy theory on for size. The fossil-fuel companies subtly fund environmentalists and climatologists, ones they know will be most vocal, hoping that we will reduce emissions to below certain levels. There is a cooling trend.

During the time when emissions are decreasing through lesser use, the fossil-fuel companies are making a killing on all the green investments they made. Suddenly, catastrophic climate change occurs in the opposite direction and things get very cold very quickly.

People now turn to fossil fuels to keep warm and the fuel companies make even more of a killing off the suckers who bought into the AGW canard.

Not that I necessarily believe such a thing but we all can cite theories and hypothesize, can't we? :)
gunslingor1
not rated yet Dec 21, 2009
Thats ridiculous. Fossil fuel industries aren't making any investments in green, but they are giving lip service. If it does get cold in certain regions rather warm, which will happen as a result of global warming, there is no reason we couldn't use electric heating. One thing you should realize is that .03% of the weight of coal is uranium. The math works out such that it is more economical, profitable and less polluting to mine the uranium out of coal than to burn it.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2009
Fossil fuel industries aren't making any investments in green


Wow, that's about as incorrect as you can get. Shell, BP, and Exxon Mobile have all donated in the billions of dollars to green energy initiatives. GE Wind is a "green power" company yet they've funded more coal plants than some coal producers have. It's not lip service, they're banking on having a stranglehold of green energy as well as fossil fuels.
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Dec 21, 2009
gunslingor1,

Using electricity in many parts of the world still means using oil, coal and CH4. See also Velanarris' comment just above this one about investments of oil companies into green initiatives. Don't believe the hype! :)