Slashdot Mirror
Scientific Journal Nature Finds Nothing Notable In CRU Leak
eldavojohn writes with an update to the CRU email leak story we've been following for the past two weeks. The peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature has published an article saying the emails do not demonstrate any sort of "scientific conspiracy," and that the journal doesn't intend to investigate earlier papers from CRU researchers without "substantive reasons for concern." The article notes, "Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers." Reader lacaprup points out related news that a global warming skeptic plans to sue NASA under the Freedom of Information Act for failing to deliver climate data and correspondence of their own, which he thinks will be "highly damaging." Meanwhile, a United Nations panel will be conducting its own investigation of the CRU emails.
Fixed it for you.
Now the nay-sayers can get a word in edgeways, now they are not being edged out by "non-conspiracists" who "aren't faking data" we can read a bit more:
This document from some German scientists attempts to shed new light on where some of the 'global warming' scientific conclusions may not be substantiated.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
If it's too much for you, start at page 92 and don't whine until you've read at least 92-94
blog.sam.liddicott.com
"Nothing to see here, move along"
Just like every "investigation" where the ones doing the "investigating" are the same ones as (or good buddies of) the ones who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Just like a police dept. "internal investigation".
They could be child pornographers, and they would still find "nothing wrong".
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
From reading comments on this and the other stories about the CRU leak, it's pretty obvious to me that nobody here appreciates just how big the problem is. That's understandable, of course, since most Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do. You see, the reason science works is that we trust the researchers to not intentionally mislead us, and that if they do, we could look at the data and see for ourselves whether their conclusions are true. In this case, however, it is the data itself that is now in question, so nobody can see for himself. Consequently, it doesn't matter at all if all the data is released, if all the source code for the models is released, if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies. The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more. Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data. Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it. The political influence is just too strong.
Without any data, all debate on global warming is simply going to end. Advocates will preach their side, detractors will preach their side, and neither side will have any evidence. And without any evidence, there is absolutely no way you'll be able to convince anybody. That's how big the problem is, and it's time you liberals started to realize it.
Give credit where it's due, please
"Computerworld magazine cited the view of the RealClimate blog that what was not contained in the e-mails was the most interesting element: "There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."[18] The science historian Spencer R. Weart, interviewed in the Washington Post, commented that the theft of the e-mails and the reaction to them was "a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers."[41]
Why are so many posts with factual errors modded up?
Sometimes it's necessary to stop listining to the idiots. It's the same with evolution denialists. We can't keep spending time on issues that the vast majority of scientists agree is bogus.
My UID is prime. Hah!
Umm, if Mars has seen ice cap shrinkage why wouldn't Solar Cycles be the most likely cause of our current terrestrial warming (which hasn't happened in the last decade - thus the change of nomenclature to "climate change")?
O rly? It's believed that the northern U.S. was covered in a 5,000 foot thick ice cap (some time in the last 100k years). It created the 5 Great Lakes. What caused the atmosphere to warm so much as to see that completely disappear? It must have been very dramatic. I wonder, though, concerning the current state of glacial changes, has there been a change in precipitation in the areas that feed those shrinking glaciers?
Also, if Anthropogenic Global Warming were true, why hasn't recorded human history, vis-a-vis, the last 1,000 years or so, shown a consistent increase in global temperatures? It would be very easy to conclude that humans have been burning more wood over the prior year for the duration of their history (beginning prior to the last millennium) and that CO2 would also have been increasing year over year as well. But, there was a mini-ice age in the last millennium. That doesn't compute.
What ALSO doesn't fit with AGW is the fact that the Earth, very much without the help of humans, has waxed and wained in and out of warm and cold periods. WITHOUT HUMANS. Back and forth. Over and over. Explain that. Please.
You should actually go to the link provided in the parent post and see where the damning data manipulation is actually happening.
The point is not, that humans don't change the atmosphere at all. It is that our (anthropogenic) contribution to the change is negligibly small — we also "contribute" to Continental Drift... The cooling of the last 10 years, that so frustrated the CRU alarmists (one of them writes in an e-mail: "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."), is now explained by the lower Sun activity — even when reminding the faithful readers, that "These changes are not enough to reverse global warming". Well, duh, "It is the Sun, stupid". Whatever we do here — and we didn't reduce our emissions (save for those few weeks in Bejing you observed) over the decade — the Sun will trump that many times over.
Oceans rising? Right... There are ancient cities on the sea floor off North Africa. Did Mediterranean rise because the humans were cooking too much 2000 years ago?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Sure. Let's take the case of AGW currently resting on a single dead tree in Siberia as an example. Faulty research is used as the base for other papers, and thus overthrowing the original research casts doubt on everything that has been built upon it later.
You see, while it's a common misconception that there are "numerous independent data sources" that "prove" anthropogenic global warming, it's simply not true.
Now I'll try to come up with a comprehensive single link to convey this picture. Maybe this works:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/ ... and in detail:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
it's in my head
Much of this has to do with the fact that "Climate Science" has ceased to be meaningful science.
Between the myriad scandals (sensors placed next to heat sources, mysterious "throwing out" of data not because it was bad but because it didn't match what they wanted to see, papers published through the UN rather than peer-reviewed journals to avoid having peer review because over 50% of the scientists whose data was used DISAGREED with the conclusion, AND worst of all from the CRU emails, systematic attempts to subvert the peer review process to ensure flawed pro-"Climate Change" studies pass while studies that raise real questions are suppressed, and yes they DID follow through on it) and the fact that the "explanations" are always half-baked at best, people are right to be skeptical.
It reminds me somewhat of the withering credibility of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who at one time were respected civil rights crusaders, and now to all but a handful of people are nothing but "jerks who can't see past the color of their own nose", simply because they have cried wolf (hell, if there was any justice Sharpton would be jailed for the murder of Harry Crist) so often. Climate "scientists" have cried wolf so often, and had their credibility eroded so thoroughly for anyone who pays attention, that the fact that they would try to hide data, rig conclusions, or suppress studies questioning their methodology is no surprise.
Of course, that's the problem with being more than 2 decades old. You begin to have some history. When I was in grade school, "climate science" was all about how we were about to have another ice age. Then, it switched to "global warming." Then, the fact that massive increases in temperature they'd predicted puzzled and mystified the "climate scientists." And every time something hard-checks them and shows their figures and predictions to be Pure Weapons-Grade Bolognium, they come back insisting that "Climate Change" theory really does predict the fact that their own fucking prediction failed to happen.
Oceans rising? Right... There are ancient cities on the sea floor off North Africa. Did Mediterranean rise because the humans were cooking too much 2000 years ago?
It doesn't help the debate when people like you give arguments like this, which is obviously ridiculous.
If you think this comparison is valid you must also disagree with the fact the carbon emissions are correlated to the amount of fossil fuel being burned. You should have stayed in school.
My UID is prime. Hah!
Krugman? Seriously? Krugman?
Yeah, sure, he has a Nobel prize. So does Gore and Obama...what's your point?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I think, you missed a good opportunity to show, what's so "ridiculous" about my argument. There really are lost cities there.
Also Sahara became a desert in only a few millenia (if not centuries) — also a drastic climate change, that can not be pinned on the evil industrialization.
And I must also disagree with the Earth being round...
Is that what you did, professor?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"What are you implying? The ENTIRE UN is in on the "conspiracy" to give more funding to a select group of scientists, so that they can take more trips to Tahiti?"
There is nothing "secret" about it - the group is known as the IPCC and will of course like most organizations defend itself to the death.
"Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real."
The corrupt culture of "science" (word used broadly) on display obviously most certainly undermines the case.
For a long time, climatology has been unique among the sciences, as it has faced a starkly politicized incentive structure for researchers.
Thanks to the emails, we now know beyond a doubt (among other things) that the entire process of peer review in the field (especially with regards to the critical IPCC reports) has been messed up on purpose by Jones, Mann, et al.
no doubt a few weeks ago you would included a concern for the reputation of that leading climate scientist Jones
let us try treating this very broadly.
Let us reflect on the ozone hole. As I recall the ground based ozone observation station date had a big margin of error and had to be used very carefully. The guy who had spent 50 years putting the network together denounced the way the data was handled. then there were a lot of dire predictions, a greenie uproar, and eventually treaties. now all this was based on suspect data use and a compuer model which did not have much validation. the effect was to to break the cold chain in the third world and i suppose quite a few people died as a result, we now have some more history. it would be useful to test the old code against the new data set and see what you get. Interestingly, the deniers talked solar cycle causes. this all seems a bit like AWG.
then there was the global cooling stuff in the seventies. if you looked real close at the science techniques, I wonder what you would find.
then there was ddt. greenies again. some us epa like head banned ddt with the comment, this was politics and there was no scientific basis. treaties again, millions of people died.
so maybe a good look at ideology plus science is warrented
The extreme U.S. costs are due to the incessant lawsuits filed by the leftist wackos that prefer we live in caves.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
That humans — especially the wealthy humans — are destroying the planet with their consumption is explicit in many "save the Earth" pieces, and implied in nearly all of them. I'm going to believe here, that you aren't feigning your ignorance of this wide-spread opinion and give you some examples...
This recent video attempts to instill guilt in people flying by showing bloodied polar bears falling from the sky. Each passenger, we are told, causes the amount of CO2, that's a weight of a polar bear. It is implied (with plausible deniability, of course, because the idiotic connection would only work on a weaker mind), that each passenger is thus responsible for a dead polar bear... Every time.
For another example, here is criticism of Ford's recent ad, that shows Ford's SUV among polar bears. The critic states, the ad "might upset a few people". Now, it might not be upsetting to you, but it is evidence, that large number of people consider SUVs a crime against nature.
Violent assholes from Earth Liberation Front will happily burn a business to stop it from "destroying the environment". The threat is not theoretical: "If you build it, we will burn it." The ideology has many sympathizers and represents the number one terrorist threat in the US.
More examples exist, of course... I hope, you will be able to find them yourself now.
I don't think, it is fair to label us "deniers". The burden of proof ought to be on those, who want to make civilization change its ways. For over a decade, we were told "the science is settled" — that not only does global warming exist, there is a significant anthropogenic contribution to it, which ought to be stopped.
Thanks to this whistle-blower (or a hacker, or whoever), we learned, that the consensus in this case achieved in a Marxist manner: through elimination of dissent. We read these "scientists" discussing boycotts against peer-reviewed journals to prevent publishing works of "sceptics". All so that the foot-soldiers on forums such as this one could continue to claim, that "no peer-reviewed journal published anything by this guy, so he must be a fringe lunatic."
We also read, how frustrated they became, faced with the actually lowering temperatures, which their computer models failed to predict. Where I'm from, a scientific theory, that fails to predict what's observed in life, is discarded. But, I guess, these guys stood to lose too much government funding, so they "massaged" their data until they got the pre-determined result.
Every proposed answer to AGW (which might not even exist) involves large tax increases and increased government control over citizens' lives. The Big Brother watching is Ok, because it is for "a greener planet" (the modern era's "Greater Good" (TM)). Scratch any advocate of AGW, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath... That alone ought to turn a reasonable human being into a "denier".
Although voluntary for now, starting 2017, Columbia University plans to have a compost bin in every dorm room. I sure hope, my daughter is not forced to live like that, when she goes to college, over junk science
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
With people like you you don't need a huge Global Conspiracy, you only need a small, dedicated cabal of liers and frauds. If, instead of supporting the party line, you read the e-mails, looked at the code and data, which the CRU was still refusing to release at the beginning of November. At the twists and turns from Professor Jones, his pathological lying and rigging the UN ICCC report, excluding by any means other opinions you see that he is a crook, and the CRU a dangerous Cabal.
But my point, sheeple, is that the CON is out, and in public, no more will the Cabal be able to lie spin and fudge in secret and the whole theory will become un-glued, and at that point the US congress and the EU parliament will stop this runaway train in its tracks.
By all means, please produce a hockey stick graph of temperatures over the last two millennia without using the falsified works of Mann or Briffa.
Either you're saying that the proxy is correct (no MWP for example) - but then the recent temperature record isn't, or you're saying that the recent temperature record is correct (we've managed to handle citing, UHI etc) but then the proxy isn't (thus there was likely a MWP warmer than today, as published in numerous peer-reviewed papers).
Take your pick. If you've got something not based on the works of Mann or Briffa, it's even worth publishing :)
it's in my head
That paper does not support a hockeystick - did you even read it?
Yes it does. The fact that you don't realize that means you are an denialist idiot. Case closed.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck