Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ExpandMyMind

Climategate analysis

31 posts in this topic

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.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.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... :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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... :unsure2:

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. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

There's a reason they didn't care about FOIA requests and ignored them I guess.

The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.

All they had to do was stall for time and they were legally untouchable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :rolleyes:

exactly.

but i feel that even the most vocal of AGWers will soon, with the sheer amount of information that is being released and discovered, have to admit that the scientists behind a lot of their papers, if not most, have more of an agenda than anyone.

i'm just glad that people are finally standing up against this, after so long. hell, a couple of years ago (and even now in most places) it would have been career suicide for a politician, and even more so for a scientist, to voice an opinion that disagrees with the IPCC.

not so much now.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly.

but i feel that even the most vocal of AGWers will soon, with the sheer amount of information that is being released and discovered, have to admit that the scientists behind a lot of their papers, if not most, have more of an agenda than anyone.

I don't know...people have a lot of money invested and their reputations are at stake. The rest, have such an emotional attachment that it's like a religion and they aren't going to be eager to admit they might have been wrong and some never will.

It will be like the coming of God...it'll get here sooner or later, even if it takes 100 years, and we won't see it, but our children will be glad we indoctrinated them and taught them a better way. :innocent::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know...people have a lot of money invested and their reputations are at stake. The rest, have such an emotional attachment that it's like a religion and they aren't going to be eager to admit they might have been wrong and some never will.

It will be like the coming of God...it'll get here sooner or later, even if it takes 100 years, and we won't see it, but our children will be glad we indoctrinated them and taught them a better way. :innocent::lol:

Michelle makes a good point about the money invested. but here's one to remember, Government Tax revenue.

if you look at the governments forecast for the next three years they are counting on raising revenue from Green taxes to the tune of £100 Billion per year. so if global warming was to fail they'd have to find others ways of generating that £100 Billion. in other words global warming is here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michelle makes a good point about the money invested. but here's one to remember, Government Tax revenue.

if you look at the governments forecast for the next three years they are counting on raising revenue from Green taxes to the tune of £100 Billion per year. so if global warming was to fail they'd have to find others ways of generating that £100 Billion. in other words global warming is here to stay.

Like in the US, they claim taxes aren't going to raised, but don't say anything about new ones.

Edited by Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michelle makes a good point about the money invested. but here's one to remember, Government Tax revenue.

if you look at the governments forecast for the next three years they are counting on raising revenue from Green taxes to the tune of £100 Billion per year. so if global warming was to fail they'd have to find others ways of generating that £100 Billion. in other words global warming is here to stay.

Maybe they will change it to global cooling?

Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they will change it to global cooling?

Just a thought

Hardly! I think when the cooling becomes obvious, they would report anti-warming money as successfully spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is becoming clearer and clearer that these men have perverted science to support their own beliefs and their political agenda. They stopped practicing science a long time ago, and unless the scientific community comes down hard against them, this will put the reliability of all scientists in question. Science is not bad, science is a tool, and it is obvious these men misused that wonderful tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody here watch or read Obama's™ State of the Union Address last night?

His administration is moving along with the 'agenda' regardless what Climate Gate has exposed.

Look:

(APPLAUSE)

And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

(APPLAUSE)

I’m grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year.

(APPLAUSE)

And this year — this year, I’m eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate.

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.

But — but here’s the thing. Even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation.

Profitable kind of energy?????..WTF is that supposed to mean????

Global economy???? Is this what your really after Obama™??? Strengthening the global structured institutions set up by the winners of WW2????

Its all becoming clearer everyday.

Could these ‘incentives’ be carbon taxation with cap & trade?

It sure looks like it!

Co2 is set to become the newest commodity to the Wall street Scam and scheme called the NYSE.

Co2 joined at the hip with petroleum...

'jack and jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water...' -you all know the rest.

Give it a couple years to really take hold and most will forget America ever had a recession.... guaranteed.

The IMF along with the WTO and World Banksters are the NWO.

Edited by acidhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is becoming clearer and clearer that these men have perverted science to support their own beliefs and their political agenda. They stopped practicing science a long time ago, and unless the scientific community comes down hard against them, this will put the reliability of all scientists in question. Science is not bad, science is a tool, and it is obvious these men misused that wonderful tool.

Scientific community is not a mob, Iams and not a Sanhedrin. Individual scientists mostly live in a freelance fashion, offering their services to the universities for the grants or to private employers. In either case scientist promises to produce some result - and demonstrated to the employers the list of the previous achievements. If there is working in Climatology among them, the employers would know who they deal with - some would reject the swindler, others on the contrary would greet, as it is a lot of cheating which can be done in scientific disciplines! Applied science always borders a circus performance, as various clowns come to the public to shear this public by offering their services for obtaining gold out of manure - this was always like that, even Emperor Rudolph was caught on this. If you only had an idea what is done in mining and mineral processing, you would've not been surprised with the Climatology at all:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.