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.

Comments

Indirection, folks

[samjam]

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

Re:The most telling word in the whole article:

[qmaqdk]

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.

Re:Nice try

[mi]

This ignores some of the more obvious ways in which humans can change the atmosphere.

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?

Re:Same with newscientist

[Troed]

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

Re:Nice try

[Moryath]

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.

Corruption matters

[Dobeln]

"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.

Re:Civilization was on trial

[mi]

I don't see anthropogenic global warming as a condemnation of civilization.

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.

Now I see why the deniers are so hot and bothered.

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.

The answer to AGW will be a combination of adapting ourselves to inevitable changes

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