30 replies to this topic

[ExpandMyMind]

scienceandpublicpolicy.org said:

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists
by John P. Costella | December 10, 2009
The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists.Most people don’t know how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies, or books that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough.

Read more...

[supervike]

I don't feel like reading 125+ pages of that.  Can you sum it up, or explain what you want to discuss about it?

[eqgumby]

I read a lot of it.
Sorry, but it really looks like these guys drove their science bus right up Politics Alley.

Agenda driven science, all the way.

Here is my summation for supervike: They lied quite a bit, kept lousy records, peer-reviewed their own co-workers papers, hid data, and black-balled scientists that did not agree with their agenda, as well as attempted to gain control of the editorial process of several scientific publications that were not controlled by a "believer" in global warming.

Edited by eqgumby, 27 January 2010 - 09:52 PM.

[acidhead]

Steve McIntyre's website Climate Audit  http://climateaudit.org/ is the best source of information for Climate gate.

Why?

-because Steven McIntyre's is the guy the IPCC is frightened of.

Mr. McIntyre along with Ross McKitrick were the two scientists who destroyed Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph.

Both men are referred to as M&M throughout the 3000 emails...

Attempts to keep important data from them regarding Mann's and Briffa's reconstruction points were deliberately with held from the men.

Even after numerous FOI requests and submissions.

Anybody interested in Climate Gate should find Mr. McIntyres website very informative.

[eqgumby]

acidhead, on 27 January 2010 - 09:50 PM, said:

Steve McIntyre's website Climate Audit  http://climateaudit.org/ is the best source of information for Climate gate.

Why?

-because Steven McIntyre's is the guy the IPCC is frightened of.

Mr. McIntyre along with Ross McKitrick were the two scientists who destroyed Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph.

Both men are referred to as M&M throughout the 3000 emails...

Attempts to keep important data from them regarding Mann's and Briffa's reconstruction points were deliberately with held from the men.

Even after numerous FOI requests and submissions.

Anybody interested in Climate Gate should find Mr. McIntyres website very informative.

I read much of the OP's linked info. A lot of the raw e-mails. As far as I am concerned, I don't think those guys are scientists. They clearly allowed their agenda to take charge of their science, and besides that, it sounds like, based on THEIR OWN e-mails, that they kept crappy records. How can you be a scientist and "lose" data, then replace it with similar data...that you created...and call that science?

[ExpandMyMind]

what eggumby said.

why was this moved to the conspiracy section? i'm pretty sure i didn't post it here.

sure, the situation is, techinically, a conspiracy, but putting it in here automatically dismisses it's merit.

Edited by expandmymind, 28 January 2010 - 05:14 AM.

[eqgumby]

expandmymind, on 28 January 2010 - 05:11 AM, said:

what eggumby said.

why was this moved to the conspiracy section? i'm pretty sure i didn't post it here.

sure, the situation is, techinically, a conspiracy, but putting it in here automatically dismisses it's merit.

Wait, this would be appropriate in the conspiracy THEORY section. It's not a theory! What do you want to bet it was put here by a PRO-global warming person? Seriously. I am requesting this be put BACK in politics. This is about corrupt scientists, not a convoluted theory about some secret government secret society.

[Fluffybunny]

I am not sure how it ended up in the conspiracy section(could have been a mistake idk), but I moved it to World Events...

Edited by Fluffybunny, 28 January 2010 - 03:14 PM.

[eqgumby]

Fluffybunny, on 28 January 2010 - 03:14 PM, said:

I am not sure how it ended up in the conspiracy section(could have been a mistake idk), but I moved it to World Events...

I'm pretty sure it's a conspiracy by the pro-global warming crowd...

[Moon Monkey]

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

http://www.timesonli...icle7004936.ece

[eqgumby]

Moon Monkey, on 28 January 2010 - 03:57 PM, said:

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

http://www.timesonli...icle7004936.ece

It also internally conspired to destroy data before any FOI request was made according to their own leaked e-mails.

[Mattshark]

eqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 04:04 PM, said:

It also internally conspired to destroy data before any FOI request was made according to their own leaked e-mails.

Nope, they didn't they never had the raw data, the MET office does. They only have calibrated data and that is since 1986. The e-mail say delete the requests from McIntyre and since McIntyre is a quote miner, that seems fair enough, they also say how he was in breach of IPCC status by making demands for the data that was not raw.

[eqgumby]

Mattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 04:12 PM, said:

Nope, they didn't they never had the raw data, the MET office does. They only have calibrated data and that is since 1986. The e-mail say delete the requests from McIntyre and since McIntyre is a quote miner, that seems fair enough, they also say how he was in breach of IPCC status by making demands for the data that was not raw.

That wasn't what the e-mail inferred. But I'm not going to debate it, it's really futile. You have an assortment of emails, that appear to say one thing, but they are conveniently explained away later by the originators.
"What I was actually saying was..."
And of course it's all possible, but there are some of those internal emails that as far as I am concerned, are more damning from a political perspective.
You can argue it all you want, I understand you have a personal stake here.

[ExpandMyMind]

Moon Monkey, on 28 January 2010 - 03:57 PM, said:

The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

http://www.timesonli...icle7004936.ece

anyone else think it's weird that important points, like the one i quoted above, go largely ignored by those who are usually so vocal?

wonder why that is...  

[Michelle]

expandmymind, on 28 January 2010 - 07:06 PM, said:

anyone else think it's weird that important points, like the one i quoted above, go largely ignored by those who are usually so vocal?

wonder why that is...  

I find that the majority of the rebuttals, when they are acknowledged, are that they are just articles and not scientific papers therfore they aren't worthy of recognition...or that they have an agenda and should be disregarded.