Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Step Down After CRU Hack Fallout
An anonymous reader writes "In the wake of the recent release of thousands of private files and emails after a server of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was hacked, Prof. Phil Jones is stepping down as head of the CRU. Prof. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, is also under inquiry by Penn State University."
I'll probably get called a nazi for saying this ... but it should really have been filed under "Religion", as well.
I really HOPE nobody is surprised about this.
Anyone who is researching our planets climate record and current climate HONESTLY, knew this whole carbon tax thing was a money making scam.
What does that tell you by the way how deep this corruption runs when Al Gore gets a NOBEL prize for the "research" these people did?
Actually, if you follow the money, the people behind this could care less about our planet, or anyone on it. What they are more concerned about are:
1) How can I make trillions of dollars a year?
2) How can I control more people?
The first step is to get a world body that taxes all nations and peoples on the earth as a precedent. Since these shadowy figures behind all of this know that they could never outright tax everyone without a huge political hurdle, they are using the guise of the environmental movement to facilitate this tax so people think it is saving trees, snails and whales.
Yeah, sure it is.
You people who believe in this stuff reading this post are stupid sheepeople.
Once the system is setup, more taxes can then easily be added and now you have a government fully sustained by taxes that reaches world wide.
That is the real goal.
If they succeed, they will begin with the next part of their agenda's, which I won't get into right here because nobody would believe me....yet....so I will wait till its about to happen.
But if just 10 years ago, I was saying to you that a government body is going to be created that would tax all nations, you would have claimed I had a screw loose.
Well, its on the verge of happening, and once it does happen these very evil people will have the resources of an entire planet to accomplish even more evil.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
They hold grudges! They take personal stake in their projects! They make up data!
Say it aint so!
I always assumed that these men who study the long-term variations of the planet's climate were appointed by an infallible creator as impartial arbiters of truth!
But now I find out that they are just regular people! Their only qualifications are going to grad school, getting PhDs, and publishing papers that impressed their peers!
And to top it all off, they don't have respect for other scientists whose theories contradict their own! They complain that these conflicting theories are poorly constructed, easily refuted, and written explicitly for shock value. As though it matters.
I know that in America, every piece of information should be treated equally! Whether it's backed up by actual evidence, or not. It's not up to "experts" who have spent their lives studying these things to decide what's the truth. It's up to each and every person's gut!
Preponderance of evidence? I don't even know what that word means. But I do know that my momma didn't raise no fool. Going forwards, I am not going to trust any scientists ever again!
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
>>>Those big money scientists are faking the whole global warming thing so they can rake in the big bucks.
You were modded funny, but this sentence is insightful.
As my professor was just telling me a few months ago: For every 3 physicists, there's only enough grants to keep 1 employed. That's a lot of pressure to produce the desired results so you can keep getting handed "big bucks" aka grants. If I was in that position, rather than lose my job or research grant, I might fudge the data too and keep the dollars rolling in. Apparently these people managed to do it for ~15 years before finally getting caught. That's billions of dollars they would not have been given, if they had not fudged the data.
Meanwhile those who are honest, and didn't hide the temperature decline, well they are "paupers" in comparison since nobody wants to fund them. They were also shut-out from publishing papers or reviewing data. Go read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", aka Paradigm Shifts, by Thomas S. Kuhn
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Which one? The free market religion or the church of global warming? Most of these debates seem to devolve into people from each camp hurling insults at each other.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
As opposed to climatologists, whose suddenly improved livelihood does depend on a big climate scare.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Bullshit zealot canned response number 326 of 27124.
Scientists, researchers, and all of academia do not get paid for their research/work only in cash money - they also get compensated by:
Getting published
Getting tenure
Getting recognition and accolades
Getting access to equipment, time (No need to teach! You're a Professor!) and lab space to further their research
All of the above directly influence their ability to:
Attending conferences for $
Give speeches for $$
Write books for $$$
Become a political party's puppet adviser for $$$$
Become a corporation's scientist at large for $$$$$
Most scientists stick to the $ and $$ categories.
Some get into the $$$ and $$$$ categories.
A handful get the $$$$$.
See: homeopathy, cold fusion, n-rays, scientology, and other fun digressions.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Despite being an Anonymous Coward you are perfectly correct. Almost every paradigm shifting Scientific event in the modern era has been subjected to scrutiny almost as bad as the Inquisitions. Once again there is no question that the post industrial revolution age has and will continue to destroy this Earth on almost every single level. To deny the extinction of animals, plants and natural resources is naive at best and evil at worst
However, CO2 is a trace gas being only 0.038% of the atmosphere and is a requirement in almost every biological habitat. That alone should cause any scientist, even paleoclimatologist, to think twice before accepting C02 as the primary source of any change in the Earths atmosphere.
My biggest fear is that billions of dollars will be spent and made trading completely worthless carbon credits. What incentive is their for Progress Energy to build Solar, Wind or any other green generation facilities if they know that they can buy credits and pass the cost onto the customer. Remember, Obama himself said that his goal was to raise US consumer energy rates so high that people would be forced to cut back on energy consumption.
Just in the US alone, there are millions of acres of critical habitat available for purchase and protection. On top of that states like Florida, where I happen to live, are criminally pathetic at using close to 95% sunny days for energy generation. Maine has a better solar policy than Florida.
I'm getting off of my soapbox because, unless your head is in the sand, this world was, is, and will continue to be run by three groups, Politicians, Business, and the 1% of the world's population that owns well over 80% of the total physical assets. If I happened to descend from the male line of William Howell of Buckinghampshire, England in 1488, I wouldn't even be talking to you. There are less than five families in the US and Europe that hold almost all personal stores of gold, silver, platinum and paladium.
You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science. No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm. Simple selfish interest.
These "deniers" are trying to get a massive gain: The truth.
What "science" are you talking about? The faked data? The munged programs? The attacks on opponents?
I have a program and data set that shows that if you don't send me all of your earnings for the last 10 years, then the world will be destroyed. Sorry, the programs and data have been lost, but the proof is in this paragraph, so you better start writing that check right now before the Earth is destroyed. You need to do it right now, any delay could be devistating. If you want collabration, just ask any of my partners in this scam.
The "Climate Change" business has smelled like those Nigerian letters for a long time now. Send us money right now, or something terrible will happen.
Unless they can rewrite this into a real scientific study, it's just going to be yet another moderately successful scam that went bust. They need to get usable, reliable, verifiable data sets. They need to do analysis in a way that others can reproduce. They need to prove that man is causing it, and that it is not a natural event.
All they have right now is a political/religious propaganda effort.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
You've used this fanciful expression twice now.
So, you consider replacing fossil fuels with renewable and nuclear energy to be the moral equivalent of the Killing Fields?
Can you show us any evidence that you are not a moron? And, if you can, please make sure to include a link to your data, because some of us are going to be a little hard to convince.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Mate, pull your head out of your asre and take a look around you, truthers, birthers, creationists, anti-vaccinationists, NWO conspiracy theorist, AGW deniers and greenpeace. All onboard the ship of fools.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Then this must be lies, since it refutes the claims that random data makes a hockey stick: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/
Where's the refutation of the refutation?
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
5-10 "research grants" at $50-100k/year for "Primary Investigator" salary is pretty comfy living... all you have to do is make your study eventually say what the granting organization (for "climate", mostly left wing kooks or people organized by Al Gore and standing to make bank by selling "carbon credits" or some other "green" product) wants your research to say, and they'll renew you when it comes time.
I don't know. Looking at American politics, talk shows and forums, it is the people who support AGCC that are under attack. Meanwhile, any crank with any axe to grind gets plenty of media attention - doesn't matter whether it's about fake birth certificates, healthcare as a harbinger of Gulags or global warming being a hoax.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
>>>>The plain fact is that the emails revealed the extent to which the "Hockey Team" were prepared to pervert data, methods, peer review and the scientific method in order to get the result they wanted.
>>I'm really hoping that slashdot gets rid of the politics section. I hate having the scientific illiteracy of my country rubbed in my face every other day.
What on earth does the GP post have to do with scientific illiteracy? There's no unscientific statements in that post... instead the GP was making a criticism of the CRU emails based on an understanding of how the scientific process works, which they did their best to pervert, by refusing to expose their data for review.
The Anti-Global Warming crowd especially likes the Pol-Pot analogy, because like Pol-Pot, they have no concern that hundreds of millions of people will die as a result of global warming that will take place in the next few centuries.
By itself the use of "Trick" wouldn't be too alarming, just suggestive of a laps in their ethical education. Mildly inappropriate at worst. However, in the context of other poor word and phrase choices such as using the trick to "Hide" something instead of correct, the expressed willingness to destroy data to avoid sharing it, and to redefine the concept of peer review in order to silence those with opposing view points collectively cross the line between mildly inappropriate into the range of ethical misconduct.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde