Science not faked, but not pretty

Dec 12, 2009 BY SETH BORENSTEIN, RAPHAEL SATTER and MALCOLM RITTER , Associated Press Writers
This Dec. 10, 2009 photo shows a sign at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England. E-mails stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the university show climate scientists stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data, but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press. The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

(AP) -- E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data - but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about . However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made .

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.

The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them - about 1 million words in total.

One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.

The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The is investigating the blocking of information requests.

"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."

When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."

Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't believe anybody else did."

The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal. When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author. Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)

"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!" Jones wrote in June 2007.

In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything the skeptic wanted - and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."

The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.

One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.

Santer, who received death threats after his work on climate change in 1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken out of context."

When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it was centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and glacial melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to last month, are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of e-mails.

Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate change over long periods.

As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.

"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."

In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.

That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.

One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.

The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.

Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.

David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."

But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.

None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.

"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.

Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at - and upheld as valid - Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.

"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.

Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."

Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling their arguments to answer online arguments - even as they claimed not to care what was being posted to the Internet

"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around 1450AD."

One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre, who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.

"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in a telephone interview.

McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.

Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.

McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.

He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails. "Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."

The skeptics started the name-calling said Mann, who called McIntyre a "bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.

"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars."

The AP is mentioned several times in the e-mails, usually in reference to a published story. One scientist says his remarks were reported with "a bit of journalistic license" and "I would have rephrased or re-expressed some of what was written if I had seen it before it was released." The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.

---

Associated Press writers Jeff Donn in Boston, Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles contributed to this report. Troy Thibodeaux in Washington provided technical assistance. Satter reported from London, Borenstein from Washington and Ritter from New York.

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

Explore further: Researchers question published no-till soil organic carbon sequestration rates

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

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 ...

United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak

Dec 04, 2009

(AP) -- The United Nations will conduct its own investigation into e-mails leaked from a leading British climate science center in addition to the probe by the University of East Anglia, a senior U.N. climate ...

Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails

Dec 03, 2009

(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 ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

57 minutes ago

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

7 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 93

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Going
3.2 / 5 (36) Dec 12, 2009
I fear the fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy to promote AGW here wont silence the skeptics. Just like the tobacco debate thirty years ago the same old refuted arguments will be resurrected zombie like to confuse the uninformed and weaken political action.
RayCherry
2.3 / 5 (24) Dec 12, 2009
The article shows what the e-mails truly exposed, lab rats miss behaving under the glaring political spotlight. They fu@&ed up, and they wrote what they were feeling in e-mails that they thought would remain between themselves.

It is not the e-mails that require scrutiny, it is the science.

Copenhagen needs to invoke a parallel review of all climate science, without slowing down the current process. An inter-governmental open oversite commity, validating results and maintaining strong collaboration between each university and their intersecting research projects. Reviews to be presented at Copenhagen's follow up inside one year, presenting a level of confidence in the entire AGW proposal, (statement of problem, ignoring all proposed solutions).

Silence, or nullify, the AGW critics first, then get full commitment to a single global agreement. Further more difficult targets will be necessary for those countries found to be producing more of the problem than others.

It is our mess.
marjon
2.4 / 5 (29) Dec 12, 2009
openhagen needs to invoke a parallel review of all climate science,

By whom?
I thought all climate science was 'peer' reviewed even though the number of peers is small and incestuous, according to the Wegman Report.
theoldrang
2.4 / 5 (27) Dec 12, 2009
Considering what had to be overlooked, to come to the conclusion which AP came to... And using the same 'scientific' standards as used by the emailers...

Africa will freeze when it moves to the North Pole, next week...

Science of the Weather geeks proves it.
mysticshakra
2.4 / 5 (34) Dec 12, 2009
No evidence of a conspiracy?

Try actually reading what the emails say instead of what the media reports "claim they say".
SincerelyTwo
2.2 / 5 (21) Dec 12, 2009
lol, no lies... just 'very generous interpretations.'
epic lulz.
prattner
3.3 / 5 (23) Dec 12, 2009
This article conveniently leaves out the Harry_read_me file news, in which the programmer admits to making up data where none exists. That is the true smoking gun. And of course, the original data was thrown out.

Climate science allowed itself to be used in a political struggle and has proven to be just another faction, like most of the news media. This story, in failing to discuss the readme file, proves the writer has an agenda to push as well.

It is certainly still possible we have a warming trend, and it is possible it is man-made. But this research is tainted to the core and needs to be carefully revisited by SOMEONE ELSE. In the meantime, nobody ought to be making expensive decisions based on this bogus research.
Mutantone
2.8 / 5 (22) Dec 12, 2009
"Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
to hide the decline sure sounds like a falsification of the data to make it fit what is wanted
bbd
3 / 5 (18) Dec 12, 2009
Associated Press ...? Hardly an unbiased (or even qualified) organization to be coming to a conclusion on this topic. (Can you say "Rothschild"?)
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (21) Dec 13, 2009
I once wondered why global-warmingists had such an emotive component to the campaign. I no longer do after seeing some of the plentiful data that was taken. It has been made available all over the net and I found a full copy.

There is this pamphlet entitled "Rules of the Game." Rule 17 is:

"Use emotions and visuals

Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do."

Rules 2 and 3 also are interesting, and explain lack of serious interaction between both sides:

"2. Forget the climate change detractors

Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change.

3. There is no ‘rational man’

The evidence discredits the ‘rational man’ theory - we rarely weigh objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear self-interested choice.
NeptuneAD
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2009
Having doubts is only opinion that is most probably based on them not wanting to accept the facts, until they can come up with solid evidence, AGW theory will remain as it is.

Ignorance is bliss.
david_king
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 13, 2009
Even the coal industry is eventually going to realize the problem of continuing on the current carbon-rich course. The drivers of hummers will be ostracized -even their children will refuse rides to school. The power of politics doesn't hold a candle to the spreading of social norms in polite society. The old hard-liners will eventually die off. I'm not saying it will be pretty but it will probably happen faster if we all stop hyperventilating with "falling sky" hyperbole. One hot, dry summer is worth a million words.
dachpyarvile
2.1 / 5 (27) Dec 13, 2009
Oh my! There be much more in this so-called "hacked data" than just old emails. A good number of the emails are dated to as recent as between Septempber 2009 and November 2009. Al Gore said that all these emails are decades old and out of context. Al Gore lied on public television! Surprised? I am not.

Oh, this leaked data is phenomenal. To read these emails and documents properly in some cases, however, requires use of Unix or Linux for proper formatting and word wrap.

In my opinion, these climate scientists have a lot of 'splainin' to do!

I just read a scathing set of comments in a leaked document entitled "IPCC WGI THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT – (TAR) GOVERNMENT/EXPERT REVIEW – APRIL-JUNE 2000."

My, oh, my! Pages 2-4 are particularly of interest. An expert climate scientist spoke scathingly of the report and suggested a rewrite. It is pretty obvious to me as to why that was so and it is apparent that this piece of advice on the part of a climate expert also was ignored.
dachpyarvile
2.4 / 5 (23) Dec 13, 2009
From page 3 of the leaked document (title given above):

There is undue emphasis throughout on the importance of surface temperature trends measured by weather stations. Chapter 2 has 10 diagrams showing these data, but only one thoroughly confusing diagram (Figure 2.12) for other methods of global temperature measurement. The fact that satellite and weather balloon measurements in the lower troposphere do not show a warming for the past 21 years suggests strongly that the surface data are influenced by proximity to human habitation, rather than by greenhouse warming. There is insufficient attention paid to the evidence that this is so, which is
dachpyarvile
2.6 / 5 (22) Dec 13, 2009
• A quadrupling of human population and increases in human prosperity in the last century have led to a great increase in buildings, fuel consumption and vehicles in the vicinity of weather stations.
• Weather stations do not take any precautions against these influences
• Many remote weather stations do not show a warming
• Much recent warming has been from a rise in the minimum temperature rather than the maximum
• Recent warming took place mainly in cold climates, in winter, and at night
• Two thirds of the weather stations operating in 1975, mainly rural, have been closed down
• Many scientific studies have identified “urbanization” effects, but these have been underestimated, because “rural” stations are assumed to be free of such effects.
• Vegetation growing around stations usually increases, but is rarely reduced.
• Airports have made a transition from “rural” to “heat island”
• Surface temperature compilations make inadequate corrections for urban effects
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (20) Dec 13, 2009
A human influence on climate from these effects is highly likely. An influence from emissions of greenhouse gases is yet to be established.

The comments of this expert climate consultant conclude as follows:

47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?

The use of questions as headings to paragraphs (particularly in the Summary for Policymakers and Chapter 2) is inappropriate for a supposedly scientific document, and gives the impression of a public relations exercise.


There is lots more where that came from. True, this document comes from 2000 but it is of interest as to what an expert climate consultant had to say about what he read in the IPCC report of the time.
TacoBell
2.7 / 5 (22) Dec 13, 2009
THIS IS VERY AMUSING!

The article is written 'BY SETH BORENSTEIN'

The same Seth that appears that appears in the emails as a good buddy to the team. Thus I'm hardly surprised by the story and conclusions of their 'investigation'.

Here is the email....

'Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth

Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454'

TacoBell
3 / 5 (21) Dec 13, 2009
An exhaustive review by The Associated Press writes author SETH BORENSTEIN.

The same Seth Borenstein found in the leaked emails. Pardon me if I don't share your confidence in such a blatant conflict of interest.

Here is the email...

Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth

Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454

flaredone
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2009
I'm sure we all are overestimating the significance of climate research. A much dangerous consequence of fossil fuel burning is the geopolitical instability, leading into global nuclear war for the rest of sources. We should stop our dependence to fossil fuels anyway, despite some global warming occurs or not.

http://www.inquit..._FAO.jpg

Do you know, the price of food and oil (and subsequent financial crisis) has started as a consequence of both recent USA wars? These wars helped to keep oil prices low, but we all are still paying for Iraq war and this costs was not evaluated in no analysis of global warming.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (22) Dec 13, 2009
The article shows what the e-mails truly exposed, lab rats miss behaving under the glaring political spotlight. They fu@&ed up, and they wrote what they were feeling in e-mails that they thought would remain between themselves.

It is not the e-mails that require scrutiny, it is the science.


With deep regret, I admit that you are absolutely right.

The very foundations of science have been destroyed by politicians who used grant funds to train scientists as Pavlov used dog biscuits to train dogs.

In this country, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) used its control over budgets of federal research agencies to protect obsolete, false concepts from change, e.g., attractive forces between neutrons, the standard solar model of a hydrogen-filled Sun, and CO2-induced global warming.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
ealex
3 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2009
Ah so apparently hiding data isn't faking anymore.

Well that's great then, LET THE SCIENCE FLOW!
thematrix606
3.3 / 5 (16) Dec 13, 2009
"According to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press."

Any further discussion should be abandoned based on this alone. Shame on people for believing journalists in any way.
Kedas
2 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2009
Where can I find the energy equation of Earth?

- How much is added by the sun.
- How much is added by burning/chemical reaction from bio life forms (incl. humans)
- How much is added by burning matter. (maybe expressed per human)
- And how much is leaving back to space.

Anyway I think even if we can put the CO2 levels back to a few centuries ago, I think the equation will still show more energy added to the planet than leaving it.
and the climate chance is probably more related to the speed in which the temp changes than the absolute temp.

Cutting 30% of the human population would problably also be a solution, but this would probably be harder to negotiate than CO2 ;-)

No evedence for what I think, but I don't need any to be right.
marjon
1.9 / 5 (15) Dec 13, 2009
I think the equation will still show more energy added to the planet than leaving it.

Then your equation is incorrect.
Look up the emissivity of the earth.
lovetheblues
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 13, 2009
what is so important about these emails.I have not read any.What did thay say anyway? Should we be trembling in fear?
lovetheblues
1.2 / 5 (13) Dec 13, 2009
what is so important about these emails.I have not read any.What did thay say anyway? Should we be trembling in fear? lol
Kedas
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 13, 2009
I think the equation will still show more energy added to the planet than leaving it.

Then your equation is incorrect.
Look up the emissivity of the earth.


If there is global cooling instead of global warming then why are we trying to reduce CO2? making the cooling go faster?
marjon
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 13, 2009
I think the equation will still show more energy added to the planet than leaving it.

Then your equation is incorrect.
Look up the emissivity of the earth.


If there is global cooling instead of global warming then why are we trying to reduce CO2? making the cooling go faster?

"This new mechanism would, in effect, constitute an adaptive infrared iris that opens and closes in
order to control the Outgoing Longwave Radiation in response to changes in surface temperature in a manner similar to
the way in which an eye’s iris opens and closes in response to changing light levels."
http://www-eaps.m...iris.pdf
marjon
1.8 / 5 (18) Dec 13, 2009
"McIntyre asked lead “hockey stick” author Michael Mann for the underlying data and was startled when Mann had trouble remembering where he had posted the files to the Internet. “That was when the penny dropped for me,” McIntyre says. “I had the sense that Mann was pulling together the data for the first time—that nobody had ever bothered to inquire independently into the hockey stick before.”
"Peer review in scientific journals is good, he suggested, but it is limited and vulnerable to compromise. “There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy.”"
http://www2.macle...storm/2/
ForFreeMinds
2.4 / 5 (20) Dec 13, 2009
One problem with this "review" is it was done by reporters reading emails, and not reviewing the science. I doubt they are qualified.

Another problem is the written records has been discarded - all that's left if what's on computer tape. Is there any way to verify the computer records match the written records? How easy it would it have been to make the computer data available on the internet? Yet they didn't - which leads me to believe they didn't want anybody checking their work. This isn't science.

This paragraph casts doubt on AGW:

David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."

I think the UEA is populated by political hacks pretending to be scientists.
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 13, 2009
...

This paragraph casts doubt on AGW:
...


This is not all that casts doubt upon it. Another file resided on the server which clearly showed at the time that the most favorable time for trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia was during what many describe as the Medieval Warm Period. The paper also stated that the modern period is a period of "relative warmth" in comparison.

There was no mention of that data in the IPCC report. In fact, the Hockey Stick was created in spite of the data.

I'm pretty torqued off about what they did with the GISP and other ice core data, too. They took down the raw data and replaced it with the data averaged into 50-year blocks.

Another climate scientist in their group stated in one of those so-called "meaningless e-mails" that the reason they did that was to "attenuate the signal." In essence they were able to smooth away the medieval data by carefully re-crafting the data to hide pertinent warming data within anomalous cold snaps.
Helio
2.4 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2009
Oh my! There be much more in this so-called "hacked data" than just old emails. A good number of the emails are dated to as recent as between Septempber 2009 and November 2009. Al Gore said that all these emails are decades old and out of context. Al Gore lied on public television! Surprised? I am not.

Oh, this leaked data is phenomenal. To read these emails and documents properly in some cases, however, requires use of Unix or Linux for proper formatting and word wrap.


Also required is a good dose of faith that what you are reading is an original, unedited, stolen document. This package of stuff has been circulated & re-distributed many times over the past weeks by people attempting to prove a case. Does that sound familiar?
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2009
File tampering would be pretty evident here. It would especially be detectable on a Unix box. I have seen zero evidence thus far that the files have been altered in any way. They have been directly copied into an archive file.

Original dates of modification are preserved. So long as they are not removed from the archive file when reading the data will be less likely to be altered.

Besides, the scientists themselves already publically admitted that the data is real and that it is their's, taken from their server. It would have been much easier to claim that the data was altered than using the out-of-context canard. This they did not do. No, they in fact admitted that the data is their's and that it is accurately preserving their words, etc.

I cannot say that later copies will not be altered sometime in future but thus far the one's I have looked over have not been altered.

Better get the files while they are hot and before they do get altered in any way. :-)
RJB26
2.6 / 5 (13) Dec 14, 2009
damage control from the people who could have broken the story a month earlier than it actually broke. the ap is a wholly owned subsidiary of the agw cult. how do you say lacks credibility in dutch?
LKD
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2009
"None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write."

Some is more than 1. So that means you asked for biased climatologists to give you a pass to write your biased article...

Seriously Seth, when you went to college, did you think: "What I want to do is become a professional Yellow Journalist. Because that is where the future is."?
YSLGuru
2 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2009
"None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write."

Some is more than 1. So that means you asked for biased climatologists to give you a pass to write your biased article...

Seriously Seth, when you went to college, did you think: "What I want to do is become a professional Yellow Journalist. Because that is where the future is."?


Well said LKD. I too find this interesting and highly suspicous because of the fact that instead of finding X number of moderate scientist in the field they found 3 that already believe in AGW and went with tehir take. Even though this AP piece is seriouslt falwed they could have at least saved some face by inviting 3 moderates on both sides of AGW and asked each for feedback.
toyo
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2009
The whole article is summed up at the start: " The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts,... even as they told the world they were certain about climate change."

I rest my case.
A scientist that says one thing and privately believes another is NOT trustworthy.
The question now is WHY? Why would they do that?
Let the theories begin - but money for research HAS to be in there somewhere...
Velanarris
2 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2009
This entire ordeal would have never happened if all the data was left out in the open, where it belongs.

Anyone who would attempt to misuse the data would have results that can't be substantiated, or utilize methods that show duplicity.

The easiest way to make a debate end is to give both sides the same information. Preventing anyone from receiving the data is where the real problem lies.

The statement by Mann, to the effect that FOIA requests would be made for no reason other than to bog down scientists is foolish. If you don't want to deal with an FOIA request, then just make the data freely available, after all... we paid for it.

Cutting 30% of the human population would problably also be a solution, but this would probably be harder to negotiate than CO2 ;-)

That would be all the self identified progressives according to the last Rasmussen poll. Shouldn't be hard to convince them as AGW is one of their foci.
frajo
2.9 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2009
A scientist that says one thing and privately believes another is NOT trustworthy.
Well, that's the thinking of non-scientists. Non-scientists believe that scientists are people who are always 100% certain of their results. But in reality, scientists are more sceptical than the common person exactly because they know very well each single step leading to their results. Only preachers, ideologists, and fanatics are always 100% and without any doubt convinced of their "truth".
Thus, if a scientist has "private doubts" this (a) does not mean he believes the contrary of what he publicly expresses to be true and (b) it shows that s/he is a real scientist.
marjon
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2009
A scientist that says one thing and privately believes another is NOT trustworthy.
Well, that's the thinking of non-scientists. Non-scientists believe that scientists are people who are always 100% certain of their results. But in reality, scientists are more sceptical than the common person exactly because they know very well each single step leading to their results. Only preachers, ideologists, and fanatics are always 100% and without any doubt convinced of their "truth".
Thus, if a scientist has "private doubts" this (a) does not mean he believes the contrary of what he publicly expresses to be true and (b) it shows that s/he is a real scientist.

There is no reward for expressing doubt.
After 8+ years of university and post doc research, scientists are not rewarded for saying "I don't know, but I'll find out."
dachpyarvile
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2009
A scientist that says one thing and privately believes another is NOT trustworthy.
Well, that's the thinking of non-scientists. Non-scientists believe that scientists are people who are always 100% certain of their results. But in reality, scientists are more sceptical than the common person exactly because they know very well each single step leading to their results. Only preachers, ideologists, and fanatics are always 100% and without any doubt convinced of their "truth".
Thus, if a scientist has "private doubts" this (a) does not mean he believes the contrary of what he publicly expresses to be true and (b) it shows that s/he is a real scientist.


You left out something. "But when the same scientists purposefully leave out crucial data and message the rest to make it conform better to their models, then they become pseudoscientists."
dachpyarvile
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2009
One other thing, in the past real scientists mentioned relative uncertainty as to final results. Doubts were expressed in public writing.

No such luck here. These scientists expressed certainty in spite of the fact that they were having doubts about the same things they went on record about being relative certainties.

That is the problem. Everyone is forcing the issue and trying to enforce policy before we know. And, thins were made much worse by manipulation of the data. We need certainty before we cause the suffering of billions by weakening economies, forcing closures, taxing people further, etc.

We all need to see the raw data and be given the opportunity to work with it and determine our own results, not be kept in the dark on some things that do not wash with the models. We need clarity not muddled data manipulated to hide what they do not want people to see.
frajo
1.8 / 5 (8) Dec 14, 2009
But when the same scientists purposefully leave out crucial data and message the rest to make it conform better to their models, then they become pseudoscientists
[1] First: "pseudoscientist" is rightwing political jargon without further meaning.
[2] Someone who purposefully leaves out crucial data is not a scientist; he's a faker.
Someone who purposefully leaves out non-crucial data is a bad scientist, but not a faker.
Thus, by concatenating "ommission of crucial data" and "massaging data to make them fit better to one's model" you show that you don't really understand the difference between a scientific faker, i.e. a non-scientist, and a bad scientist.

I don't have a solid opinion of my own wrt AGW, but I know when someone is just pushing an agenda.
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2009
You need to sift through all the data yourself. Funny. A number of scientists I personally know and have worked with also use the terms "pseudoscience" and "pseudoscientist" (I guess they all are right-wing even though they all voted for Obama, etc.).

So, I guess, according to your comments, that these climatologists are fakers rather than bad scientists. Thank you. That had to have been a hard thing to admit.

Fact is, they purposefully left out crucial data in some instances and "attenuated the signal" by manipulating the data in others. So, according to your own definition they were fakers. Again, thank you. :)
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2009
Fact is, they purposefully left out crucial data in some instances
I'm agnostic in this respect. I don't know whether the data they left out were crucial. I understand your desire to let them be crucial, though.

There's another thing agnostics like me wonder about: Why do the anti-AGW campaigners pretend that the University of East Anglia represents the world scientific community?
dachpyarvile
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 14, 2009
They don't represent they are the world scientific community. They do supply a lot of the information used. They also house additional data supplied from elsewhere.

Use of proxies is crucial to climate science, particularly where there are blanks in past data. It is the only way to look at past climate before the use of instruments to measure current climate changes. These have been touted as wonderfully accurate. But, when they contradict models they discard proxy.

Omission of proxies and modification/padding/fudging such proxy data that does not furnish what one wants to produce an expected/desired result consist of both omission and fudging of crucial data.

Taking the raw data and deliberately averaging the results to 50-year blocks to "attenuate the signal" is not appropriate when such data yields results that do not agree with what you think the results really should show.

And, I am not an anti-AGW campaigner. You will never see me at rallies or in any such like forum.
defunctdiety
1.6 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2009
I don't know whether the data they left out were crucial.

I realize what you're trying to do and it really has no validity, if you are in a science profession I find it sickening as a scientist that you're rationalizing the merit of any given data point.

The fact is, if you have a data set with specific parameters, all data within those parameters is crucial.

There is either data in a relevant data set which all must be accounted for, or there is data that is not in a relevant data set and therefore none of it is accounted for.
Why do the anti-AGW campaigners pretend that the University of East Anglia represents the world scientific community?

If it's happening in one circle, you can rest assured it's happening in others.
I know when someone is just pushing an agenda.

So what do you call it when politicians insist on incomplete, unsettled science as a fact and attach legislation to it?
dachpyarvile
2.2 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2009
Let me make clear my stance, for the umpteenth time, so as to leave no room for misunderstanding.

I do not hold a set-in-stone view on the merits/truths of AGW. If I saw data that is unmanipulated, unpadded, and the like, that definitively supports the idea that man is responsible for GW, thus AGW, I would begin to support such a point of view.

I do believe that we did have a warming spell, punctuated now with a cooling trend. I do believe and know that CO2 levels have climbed. I know that man is partly responsible for that. However, it is not yet clear that CO2 is what is driving the climate as it was going. CO2 lags behind warming.

To date, I have seen little to nothing that can conclusively show this. There is even less "conclusive" data now that we know that what was used was tainted and/or came from hopelessly corrupted databases.

My only agenda is to have all facts known publically and have all raw data paid for with public funds made public--completely and easily.
Velanarris
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2009
There's another thing agnostics like me wonder about: Why do the anti-AGW campaigners pretend that the University of East Anglia represents the world scientific community?

The UEA based CRU is the organization that supplied ALL of the data used in the IPCC AR documents, as well as all of the data used in warming projections.

This data was missing when people skeptical of AGW requested it. The real duplicity here is the fact that the data was thrown away and then FOIA requests were denied on the grounds that there were confidentiality agreements and unrecoverable corruption of prior record.

This means that all of those Raw data constructions we've looked at, regardless of the manipulator of that data set, or their intentions, is operating off of incorrect raw measurements.

This has set climatology as a science back several decades. I'm not mad because of AGW or any other hypothesis. I'm mad because now we can't determine the truth of the matter with any certainty.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2009
This has set climatology as a science back several decades. I'm not mad because of AGW or any other hypothesis. I'm mad because now we can't determine the truth of the matter with any certainty

Well said. The fact is that this sort of censorship has been going on in science for so long that all science, especially physics, has been held back for decades. once those in control of a physics-sect believes what they want to believe, they do not allow any new data or logic to contradict it. For example all the accepted models on superconduction cannot explain why an applied conservative electric field becomes zero when SC sets in. But just try to publish this incontrovertible physics-fact and see what happens!
LKD
1.1 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2009
I posted a comment pointing out that it has become standard practice for all physics societies and their journals to censor information and logic which challenge "what they want to believe". I specifically mentioned institutions like the Royal Society of London, AAAS and Nature publishing House.
GUESS WHAT HAPPENED? MY POST WAS REMOVED FROM THIS SITE: PROOF THAT THIS SICKNESS IS ALSO IN PHYSORG!.


Though I believe your post was removed because of the link more than the thought process in your case, this practice has been the case for most of all sciences since we could reason.

When you challenge a previous thinking, you are confronted by those who don't wish to learn. History is full of this. One only need look at the most glaring example, A flat vs round earth, to realize that this will always be the case, and all you can do is hope to persuade people to at least consider the option, if only privately.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2009
Though I believe your post was removed because of the link more than the thought process in your case, this practice has been the case for most of all sciences since we could reason.

Correct, but one would have thought that after Galileo the sciences would have learned something!
When you challenge a previous thinking, you are confronted by those who don't wish to learn. History is full of this. One only need look at the most glaring example, A flat vs round earth, to realize that this will always be the case, and all you can do is hope to persuade people to at least consider the option, if only privately.

NO this is unacceptable within the 21st century. That is why the scientists on climate research at East Anglia University deserve the death penalty. So do all the editors and peer reviewers who are equally corrupt. And unfortunately there are no exceptions at present. In my book I am naming them and giving their inane corrupt comments.
LKD
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2009
NO this is unacceptable within the 21st century.


What can you do? People are emotional first, and rational second. Some of the AGW fanatics are a perfect example of reaction without thought. I do believe that some have valid science and facts to present an argument with those who oppose this theory, they are sadly drowned out by the Ted Turner's and the Al Gore's who toss out ludicrous false facts, then demand we all stop thinking and charge with torches to your nearest industrial site and stop commerce before we kill the planet.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2009
In my book I am naming them and giving their inane corrupt comments.

Send me advanced notice, it'll be worth a read I'm sure.

It will be announced widely. Check regularly on my website. I hope to complete the last sections before March next year. Then it will be with the publishers. You will then soon afterwards read how many editors and "peer reviewers" use the term "it seems" instead of stating "it violates this or that physical principle".Unbelievable!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2009
What can you do? People are emotional first, and rational second. Some of the AGW fanatics are a perfect example of reaction without thought. I do believe that some have valid science and facts to present an argument with those who oppose this theory, they are sadly drowned out by the Ted Turner's and the Al Gore's who toss out ludicrous false facts, then demand we all stop thinking and charge with torches to your nearest industrial site and stop commerce before we kill the planet.

Fine, but they stil have a right to publish their ideas and deductions. Just as you have the same right. As soon as our scientific "Gods" think they can sensor what they do not like, we are lost.
I think that both sides agree that we as humans are contributing to global warming. The next question is: If we do not act, and the persons claiming that we are approaching a catastrope are wrong: So what? If, however, they are correct and we do not act: What then?
toyo
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2009
"Non-scientists believe that scientists are people who are always 100% certain of their results."

Read the statement properly before you comment on it - it would help your follow-up statements.
First of all you PRESUME I am not a scientist and secondly you make an obviously false presumption about mythical 'non-scientists', which is a meaningless grouping.
The rest of your comments were equally off the mark.

Put it simply, where are the statistical studies that show the confidence level of the findings?
I don't know because I haven't researched the basic IPCC science (does anyone have access to that?), but I am told that a major objection to the IPCC recommendations by some renowned scientists is based on the fact that there has not been the usual collaboration between statisticians and researchers, so these confidence levels can be published.
The only other science affecting global populations, Pharmacology, is bound by strict statistical protocol. Why isn't this one?
LKD
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2009
I believe that we have left a small ice age and are finally returning to the normal global temperatures we should be experiencing. I also don't believe that humans increasing CO2 .05% to .08% of the atmosphere would do anything at all but make plants grow better.

I would love to talk about research and results and scientific views, but where exactly can anyone start from? The very basic data is reputed to be corrupt beyond reliability.
LKD
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2009
defunctdiety: Please don't swear at anyone that has been sincere and respectful as far as I have read.

Also You forgot to bring up India, the second largest polluter in the world after China, (Who's air is so bad that the Olympics were in shambles) is also not participating as last I heard. Both country's look at the agreement, then their starving billion populace, then laugh at the agreement. They are also 30% of the worlds population mind you.

If you don't have these two huge countries, you have nothing.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2009
"Non-scientists believe that scientists are people who are always 100% certain of their results."

Not true: Scientist are the lying B*****S who spread this concept around. Most non scientists have a healthy disrespect for the integrity of scientits; just as they should have. All I can say is that since the debate began more than 30 years ago, I am seeing changes in weather around me just as had been predicted by those who claim that we are changing our climate.
After all it is totally stupid to use your clean water well as a toilet; just because it saves money!
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 16, 2009
Dear defunctdeity,
I tried to copy your tirade but this website did not allow me to do so.
Yes I am not ashamed to admit that as far as "knowing everything" I am an idiot. Therefore I keep an open mind to learn from deities like you who obviously do "know everything".
But calling me a f***ing idiot at my age really overestimates my prowess. Nonetheless, Thanks: It brought back happy memories.
frajo
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2009
Non-scientists believe that scientists are people who are always 100% certain of their results.
Read the statement properly before you comment on it - it would help your follow-up statements.
I did so - unlike you.
First of all you PRESUME I am not a scientist
No. I wrote about a certain kind of thinking; not about you.
and secondly you make an obviously false presumption about mythical 'non-scientists', which is a meaningless grouping
No. The statement you quoted was my (working) definition for the term "non-scientist". It is meaningful because there are indeed a lot of people who think this way and because of that assume science to be a special kind of religion.
But it is the privilege of scientists to be sceptical. It separates them from believers.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 16, 2009
It is the RESPONSIBILITY of scientists to be skeptical.
ChaoticLimbs
2.4 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2009
quote: The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.

If the tree ring data for the time period does not match recorded temperatures, the method for estimating temperature from tree rings is erroneous. If the actual temperature measurements show an increase, but the tree rings show a decline, the portion of data derived exclusively from tree rings cannot be relied upon. So it's not "faked", it's still as far from good science as you can get without working for the Discovery Institute.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2009
quote: The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.

If the tree ring data for the time period does not match recorded temperatures, the method for estimating temperature from tree rings is erroneous. If the actual temperature measurements show an increase, but the tree rings show a decline, the portion of data derived exclusively from tree rings cannot be relied upon. So it's not "faked", it's still as far from good science as you can get without working for the Discovery Institute.

Tree ring proxies exhibit high uncertainty.
LKD
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2009
quote: The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was ...


The problem was that he had NO trouble using the tree ring data pre 1960 (I believe if I recall right, or whatever date was) and real temperatures post 1960. The point was the trick was to basically use two different methods to derive a desired end result. One method which is shown to be erroneous! But yet they used it because it conveniently, and falsely, confirmed their desired results.

This is like using A^2+B^2=C^2 on an obtuse triangle and throwing Sin(e) x = o/h in there instead of B^2. The result will be false.

No one with any credibility would do such a thing. They should have their degrees revoked.
LKD
1 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2009
When I type A^2, I actually mean A squared. Forgive my inaccurate nomenclature.
defunctdiety
1.6 / 5 (11) Dec 16, 2009
Therefore I keep an open mind to learn from deities like you who obviously do "know everything".

I didn't and wouldn't claim to know everything, but demonstrate that I do not know what I am talking about here and I will concede.

Only recently have I fallen (back?) into the regrettable habit of ad homniem attacks, but yours sir was the first time I've cursed in a looong time. This was because of your blatant and purposeful nonchalance towards such an important subject (economic impact of climate legislation) where even the most superficial of thought devoted to it should tell one that there is no "so what".

If the US hasn't already seen irreparable economic damage done, the wrong pledge at this climate summit will guaranteed push it over the edge.

I simply couldn't abide by it, the People must be made aware if they are not. And a vehement denunciation of your statements seemed like a good way to convey my message at the time.

I apologize for cursing and calling you an idiot.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2009
If the US hasn't already seen irreparable economic damage done, the wrong pledge at this climate summit will guaranteed push it over the edge.


Ironic, that all this damage has been caused by *DE*regulation (including globalization) -- as opposed to regulation. At any rate, your histrionics are like those of fishermen who resent government-imposed catch quotas, even as their industry collectively over-fishes the commons to the point of utter collapse.

If we continue going forward in unsustainable ways, then all we're doing is shoving off the bill onto our progeny. We are not avoiding economic damage; all we're doing is making the eventual damage bill progressively more crippling.

So curse away, by all means. If you're going to insist upon planting your flag on the wrong side of history, then you should do it unabashedly and with full commitment to the cause. Let's be not just bankrupt, but morally bankrupt as well. Carpe diem!
LKD
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 16, 2009
Then you have no experience with business. Why don't you sit down with a company owner. A small one, big one, doesn't matter, the reality is the same for all of them.

Regulation is what is driving business to increase costs, and thereby employ less people, pay less, and all the bad things that go along with that.
You speak of deregulation, but I bet you can't once it has happened in the past 10 years.

Some is necessary. I fully agree that standards of operation are required as some operators will skirt corners to cut costs regardless of the consequences, but there is a limit to what is reasonable.

When oil companies are not allowed to drill because it bothers people, that is absurd. When the government can take land and give it to someone who will pay more in taxes, that is an abomination. When government requires companies to do the most inane things because it looks good in on paper, you stop business.

Ignorance is our greatest commodity it seems.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2009
You speak of deregulation, but I bet you can't once it has happened in the past 10 years.


Uhhh.... Does "Enron" ring any bells? How about "Worldcom"? How about "AIG"? "Lehman Brothers"? Does "S&L Crisis" sound familiar at all? Derivatives? Ever heard of "outsourcing"? I'll just stop here, since someone as familiar with business as yourself might actually implode if I continue the near-infinite list...

I'll tell you "what is driving business to increase costs, and thereby employ less people, pay less, and all the bad things that go along with that": it's competition from third-world countries where a worker's wage is $2/day, workplace safety is unheard-of, and pollution runs rampant. No amount of cost-cutting over here is EVER going to make us competitive with that. EVER. Not unless you're willing to work for $2/day, let Dow Chemical flow its waste into your drinking water, and let the neighborhood power plant rain black dust on your roof.
LKD
1.1 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2009
Enron 1997 not applicable to my question, and doesn't effect the hear and now by your inference, but I will go into if you really want to.
Lehman's: http://www.scribd...nkruptcy
Note the first paragraph where they state BAD regulation is a cause.
Worldcom: http://money.cnn....ndex.htm Maybe the IRS should have done a better job. Fraud is already regulated by prison terms.
S&L: Yes, I agree. But that was almost 20 years ago. It also fails to apply to the here and now.
Derivatives: Yes and no. Where is the SEC in all this? but maybe this would be proper reading? https://www.chica...sp75.pdf

In regards to 3rd world outsourcing, yes! I am with you! But it will take time to stabilize all nations to 1st nation status if we just wait. Why don't we send unions to Mexico? India? China? Bring their standard of living up? it worked in America, it will work there.
darkstar7
1.8 / 5 (4) Dec 16, 2009
The Libs are all around us. That in itself is not bad, but the lies the bring forth and support is too much. Yes, there is GW, but it is not man made. One only has to look at past data and the ice ages.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2009
I didn't and wouldn't claim to know everything, but demonstrate that I do not know what I am talking about here and I will concede.
Why should I try: I am not an expert on the subject and only asked a question which, by the way you did not answer; bur rather started being abusive. What worries me at present is that this is the kind of behaviour which has become the rule in science. Once a scientist wants to believe what he wants to believe he/she is more dogmatic than any Fundamentalist Southern Baptist Pastor can ever hope to be. Therefore censorship and foul play has become the rules of the game in science. The researchers at East Anglia University did not act out of character from what you will find at any physics journal when you are unfortunate enough to discover data which contradicts what the dogmatic idiots in charge of physics want to believe is correct. Similarly your attitude does not help to have an objective discussion.
Thanks for apologising!
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2009


Uhhh.... Does "Enron" ring any bells? How about "Worldcom"? How about "AIG"? "Lehman Brothers"? Does "S&L Crisis" sound familiar at all? Derivatives? Ever heard of "outsourcing"? I'll just stop here, since someone as familiar with business as yourself might actually implode if I continue the near-infinite list...

I'll tell you "what is driving business to increase costs, and thereby employ less people, pay less, and all the bad things that go along with that": it's competition from third-world countries where a worker's wage is $2/day, workplace safety is unheard-of, and pollution runs rampant. No amount of cost-cutting over here is EVER going to make us competitive with that. EVER. Not unless you're willing to work for $2/day, let Dow Chemical flow its waste into your drinking water, and let the neighborhood power plant rain black dust on your roof.

Costs rise due to government regulations and control. Not free markets.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2009
Once a scientist wants to believe what he wants to believe he/she is more dogmatic than any Fundamentalist Southern Baptist Pastor can ever hope to be. Therefore censorship and foul play has become the rules of the game in science.
Did you try to look at it from the perspective of the other side? An uncle of mine, an insurance man and hobby mathematician, addressed for decades virtually all mathematical institutes of his country with his personal "proof" of fermat's conjecture (long before it was proven by Andrew Wiles). He wrote letters, he phoned, he visited. Repeatedly. Some of the professionals got very angry and he became a persona non grata in the mathematical world of his country. One professor told me that there were just too many of those "crackpots" to waste one's time with their ideas.
It's a dilemma. There might be one genius in one hundred cases. But who has the time to listen to all of them just to find the one?
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2009
Costs rise due to government regulations and control. Not free markets.
The Free Markets dystopia doesn't answer who protects the needy against the greedy.
Velanarris
1.7 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2009
Costs rise due to government regulations and control. Not free markets.
The Free Markets dystopia doesn't answer who protects the needy against the greedy.

The needy protect themselves in a free market. One need only vote with their wallet.

The root cause of free market failure is the apathy of the common man/woman.
defunctdiety
1.8 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2009
all this damage has been caused by *DE*regulation

The debt was incurred by decades of a Nations unsustainable and indeed hostile economic policy towards it citizens, i.e. the gross abuse of fractional reserve lending policy to create a nation whose "wealth" exists only on paper and in a never-ending cycle of owing, on the assumption that someday all that debt will turn into wealth, even though the continuance of that wealth-growth depends on it not being paid back and it only turns into more debt, and on it's ability to subtly economically oppress the middle-class with this policy. Thanks Federal Reserve.

The imminent inflation is from record government spending in the past decade that has only worsened and continues to worsen and if we agree to hundreds of billions in climate aid will be the nail in the coffin. Carbon taxing will "just" raise cost of living, adding another level to lower and middle income economic oppression.
defunctdiety
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2009
If we continue going forward in unsustainable ways

Tell me, do you like subsidies Pink? Have you ever really thought about how AGW policy will manifest?

AGW legislation does nothing to directly back renewables. Indeed it promotes and facilitates the continued use of fossils through the absurd cap-and-trade ruse and promotion of carbon sequestration, both of which the costs are transferred to the People, with interest.

The most AGW can be said to do for renewables is to "reverse subsidize" them, via artificially reducing demand (raising cost) of fossils. Let me give you a little back ground on subsidies. All of the Bush era and Big Oil scandal has it's roots in government subsidies, the ethanol industry would not exist without subsidies. Subsidies are direct interference by the gov't on market dynamics, instantly destroying a valid free market.

Our only hopes are for the People to take gov't back, shrink gov't and reinstate conditions for a true free market, including no Fed.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2009
Costs rise due to government regulations and control. Not free markets.
The Free Markets dystopia doesn't answer who protects the needy against the greedy.

The function of government is to protect from theft and fraud.
Who should protect fools like those who 'invested' with Madoff? If it is too good to be true, it is. But, in Madoff's case, he had implicit government sanction and 10 years of being actively ignored by the SEC.
Who are the 'greedy'. Those who want high returns for no risk and then want the government to bail them out? Who protects the prudent from that?
Velanarris
2 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2009
The function of government is to protect from theft and fraud.

No, it certainly isn't, and if it was, they've all failed miserably.
marjon
1 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2009
The function of government is to protect from theft and fraud.

No, it certainly isn't, and if it was, they've all failed miserably.

Yes, it does fail at that task, but that is what government should do, protect private property.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2009
Again I am pointing out that all publications are being censored: My contributions to this blogg has been removed. So why argue with bigots on both sides of the issue.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2009
beating those people with batons looks like an awful lot of fun
You have an emotional problem.
RJB26
3 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2009
did anybody else see that copenhagen recieved 4 inches of global warming yesterday. i know, i know (mocking voice)- "weather is different from climate". i cant be the only one one amused by the irony of anti-capitalists demanding capital right. this whole gathering is such a joke.
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2009
Tree ring width is controlled by a large number of factors, not just temperature. It is probably a mistake to have ever used it for any climate warming studies.

So Jones was quite correct in discarding this data if he had real temperature measurements. I agree the word 'trick' sounds sneaky, but it is a commonly used term in science for a clever or elegant technique for solving a problem.

The issue that almost all of these posts overlooks is that even if all of the data from the scientists from England is discarded as corrupt or unreliable, there still remains a vast body of convincing evidence from many other sources. In addition, studies or scientists funded by any fossil fuel or mining interest should be viewed with the same degree of skepticism that studies showing that tobacco is completely safe (and non-addicting) by the Tobacco Institute are. Remember to be as skeptical of anti-warming studies as you are of you are of warming ones. To do otherwise is quite dishonest.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2009
You have an emotional problem.
your buddies over there have a credibility problem.
You have yet another problem if you're unable to grasp that I'm nobody's buddy.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2009
When they say they have "attenuated the signal" by averaging into 50-year data blocks and when they admit to themselves that their databases contained corrupt data that had to be filled with bogus numbers or padded with arbitrary values--but do not tell the public they have done this, it is trickery in the negative sense of the word.

People flat out admitted to making up figures. One of the review documents flat out stated that the figures used in the third IPCC report were fraudulent and in desperate need of revision. The word "fraudulent" was specifically used by the climate expert who said it.

There is no way around it. These people were doing fraudulent things and using trickery in the negative sense.
dachpyarvile
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2009
Here is something regarding the statement that the climate scientists were releasing to the public. This comes from an email dated October 9, 1997:
Distribution for Endorsements --

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!


Wow! Forget screening? What a way to bump up the numbers in their little AGW "consensus"! Forget screening as to the identity of real scientists. Forget screening for cranks. Forget credentials. Just get the numbers! More trickery with the numbers.

Folks, there is a lot more of the same where this came from...
RJB26
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2009
"The issue that almost all of these posts overlooks is that even if all of the data from the scientists from England is discarded as corrupt or unreliable, there still remains a vast body of convincing evidence from many other sources."

actually there isnt since we have seen the same fudging of data from NIWA, the darwin station in australia via NOAA's "homogenization" techniques, not to mention the lack of transparency from NASA's james hansen. NASA's GISS is currently being sued for the release of its climate data which it has refused to release(hey shouldnt taxpayers be able to see what their money is being spent on). most of your "settled science" is based on the GHCN data which many of them use. so you see there is an incestuous relationship between all these fine institutions.

you should be as skeptical of GE and al gores role in pushing agw as you are of the "tobacco institute and mining interests" which have nothing to do with anything.
Velanarris
2 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2009
So Jones was quite correct in discarding this data if he had real temperature measurements. I agree the word 'trick' sounds sneaky, but it is a commonly used term in science for a clever or elegant technique for solving a problem.

If you admit that tree rings aren't correlary to temperature why use them at all? Why use any of the data if it requires trickery?
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (12) Dec 19, 2009
Blast! I was just about to pull temperature data from the CRU website for comparison to other data and checking data manipulation of source code, etc., and got the following:

The CRU Website is currently unavailable, but we're working on it!
In the meantime, recent press releases are here.


I hope the data comes back up. I think all of it should have been left online, intact, so the public can look things over as well. Some might take this action as "having something to hide." :)
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2009
Another annoyance, or another thing "not pretty" is what is found in the experts' panel of reviewers' statements. They flat out stated that the IPCC figures for carbon cycle are exaggerated by a factor of 6 by year 2100 and that of radiative forcing actually lower by a factor of 4 to 6 than the IPCC "best guess" for the same period. That was taken from pages 6-7 of a very damning document written by climate experts on the panel of reviewers. File:///FOIA/documents/ipcc-tar-master.rtf

More news stories

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

Researchers successfully clone adult human stem cells

(Phys.org) —An international team of researchers, led by Robert Lanza, of Advanced Cell Technology, has announced that they have performed the first successful cloning of adult human skin cells into stem ...