| Scientists' Emails Expose Global Warming Fraud |
|
|
|
| by Tom McGregor | Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 10:58 AM |
|
The Daily Telegraph of London reports that, "the material was taken from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit - a world-renowned climate change research center - before it was published on websites run by climate change skeptics." Some are claiming that the emails disclose that scientists manipulated data to boost their argument that global warming is authentic and being caused by human activities. Skeptics had seized upon one email as alleged evidence of this, talk sbout a "trick" being utilized to massage temperature statistics to "hide the decline." According to the Telegraph, "the university confirmed that research data has been stolen and pulished online and said it had reported the security breach to police." A spokesman is quoted as saying that, "we are aware that information for a server used from for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites." He added, "because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genbuine. This information had been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in the inquiry." Apparently, the files were first unloaded on to a Russian server and then posted across the internet. As reported by the Telegraph, "an anonymous statement accompanying the emails said: "We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it." To read the entire article from the Daily Telegraph of London, link here: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (16)
...
written by John Weekley , November 21, 2009 The "oops" heard 'round the world. I thought the whole discipline of science was taking the biases, emotions, and politics out of the data. Just ask a pilot how things work out when aeronautical engineers fudge on the flight testing data.
...
written by Jason K , November 22, 2009 I don't get the whole argument... On one side, you have a group of people who say the earth is getting warmer and we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels and go greener. The other side said that we need to stop funding the Middle East and drill at home and develop cleaner technologies at home (natural gas, solar, wind, etc.) So how about both groups get together, reduce our energy consumption, reduce our foreign dependence, and start pushing green technologies? Anyway, I belive the trick referred to what data point you use for global warming... use one starting point and it shows warming, use another and it doesn't. Does anyone know if the oceans water temps have been warming?
...
written by bigun , November 22, 2009 Yes Jason! The truth is that the earth has been cooling for at least ten years.
...
written by John Weekley , November 22, 2009 Jason k, As I understand it, the major controversial question is whether post-Industrial Age era Man and his machines and fuels are causing the Earth's temperature zones (air/water) to unnaturally warm, thereby threatening planetary life that, otherwise, would not be threatened. The "Yes He is" crowds claim all kinds of weather and temperature occurrences result from such things as fossil fuel emissions, methane gas from land fills and animals like cows, and other man-caused sources of carbon dioxide (which I presume they mean "excess" carbon dioxide, as carbon dioxide is a natural gas, without which we would have little oxygen). Most of these people, politically, are Democrats, liberals, Ultra-Leftists, and a large collection of scientists (including those who have been shown to have cooked the numbers). For most of these people, Global Warming/Climate Change is a political movement of religious proportions; for some, a scientific quest to survive. The problem for people like me is, they have never proved, scientifically, the premise that Man-caused activities are causing the Earth to unnaturally warm (or climates to unnaturally change). On the other side are scientists who have proved Man has precious little to do with something as huge as Earth temperature zone temperatures, and who show these changes are part of natural cycles. There are also those, like me, who will go with the scientific proof, whatever that is, and not with what many people believe is hysteria generated by hysteria. I personally believe anything we can do, at reasonable cost, to clean up our air and water, is its own reward in terms of caring for our environment and what goes into our bodies and what we leave for our children. I also believe, for other reasons more economic in nature, that we need to move away from foreign energy sources and use our own energy for fueling our society and machines. Earth sea and ocean water temperatures have to do with a variety of natural events and their results, including changes in the Earth's underwater crust, volcanic activity, natural zones, and through temperature transference, and with the ocean's version of the Jet Stream that carries warmer waters into areas of cooler waters. Helping all of this is the Sun, and Earth's changing juxtaposition to it, and Earth's slightly irregular spinning movements in space, resulting in very very slow movements into and out of Ice Ages and De-Icing Ages. Just remember that the Poles are very cold, the Mediterranean (meaning the middle of the land/Earth) is much warmer and nicer, Dallas is hot in July, and Sydney is cool in July, and plan your vacations accordingly. Good luck!
...
written by Shadrach , November 23, 2009 Okay, let's be clear, just because one particular minister is a fraud, does not mean God is dead; and just because one global warming scientist is caught trying to sex up his charts, does not mean that the massive evidence of global warming is dead. Global warming is so real, that even those who deny humankind as the cause admit the evidence of the warming is irrefutable. Just a few clear pieces of evidence: 1. Glacier melting. A world wide fact. For example, in 1910, Montana's Glacier National Park had 150 glaciers; today - 27. 2. Ice Packs melting - in Arctic Oceans and Antarctica, the reduction of the ice packs has been real, consistent and measured. Every year the Antarctic maps are redrawn due to loss of Ice Shelves. The Arctic Ocean will soon have ice free summers. 3. Coral Reefs - 70% show damage caused by warmer ocean temperatures. 4. 80% of Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice pack is gone. 5. The data from NASA is clear, showing warming over land and sea, since 1880: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ The facts about warming are fairly clear. The questions are what is the source of the warming and what are we going to do about? Those who deny man's potential role in warming often claim that those who are for it have some maniacal political desire to end capitalism. In reality, we could end 55% of global warming CO2 gases with 2 simple changes. 40% of global warming CO2 comes from fossil fuel fired electricity plants. These could be replaced with nuclear plants. Why is it that the USA gets 70% of its electricity from fossil fuels, but that France gets 78% from nuclear and 12% from hydro, for only 10% from fossil fuels? 30% of global warming CO2 comes from automobiles. Why is it that Natural gas cars, which would cut this in half are so unused? How easy would it be to use NG powered cars if we just had NG pumps available across the nation? How about actually having an electric car, like a plug in hybrid, that can use electricity for almost 85% of its usage? (most driving is within range of current electric car technology). The reality of global warming is clear. Real solutions do not require ending capitalism. Yes, it is sad that some scientists would rather sex up the charts than honestly discuss the fact that even when in a warming cycle, there are annual ups and downs. Yes, it is also sad when a minister or priest is found to be a fraud or fake. Neither instance of a fraudulent messaenger alters the reality of the message they seek to represent. One or two bad scientific apples does not destroy the others, like NASA, that have open and clear data.
...
written by Ian Perry , November 23, 2009 My understanding is that the seas were warmer in periods we have fossil evidence of coral reefs, and that the damage done to them now is the result of other problems such as the crown of thorns starfish, not global warming. My understanding regarding Kilimanjaro is that its decline in ice is a result of a change in rainfall patterns, not warming. Why is it a surprise that things are warmer not than in the 188os--weren't we in an usually warm period then? How does this prove that global warming is manmade or that it will turn into a catastrophe unless we do something? Hasn't the earth failed to warm in the past decade? The emails note this.
...
written by Paul Barnes , November 23, 2009 Thanks for the intelligent comment, Shadrach. Very refreshing.
...
written by furrpiece , November 23, 2009 It is impossible to visit Los Angeles in the summer on a still day and not appreciate the contribution people make to air pollution and smog. Yet, one can read stories from the late 1800s in L.A. about dirty air, when there were no cars, no trucks, no planes, few trains, no coolers, no generators, and so on. In this case, the guilty party is the geology of the area, creating something of a bowl, and the physics of inversion layers trapping pollution inside the bowl. That's very different than people, through ordinary living and manufacturing, having an impact on the planet's astronomical sophisticated climate systems and temperature patterns. I don't doubt the Earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. It's been doing this for a few billion years, and long before people showed up. What I'm missing is scientists connecting the dots that prove when people started to make this happen when it otherwise would not happen. When we read stories about the very scientists trying to sell Global Warming as fact going about changing data to agree with their public positions, the red flag it raises would make Chairman Mao blush. The inescapable conclusion is that if they were right about Global Warming, there would be no reason to play games with the data.
...
written by John Weekley , November 24, 2009 Shadrach, most of us who embrace some form of major religion have before been disappointed in the messengers, and have had to remind ourselves of the eternal and incorruptible nature of what is really important; the message. But, that's not what happened here. We aren't dealing with charlatans like those in old Del Rio radio selling a "sliver of the Cross" or "a piece of the Robe". We're dealing with people who know where The Body is buried, and keep moving it. In other words, they have corrupted the message as well as the evidence used to create the message, knowing the entire belief is insupportable on the unaltered facts.
...
written by Shadrach , November 24, 2009 John: You are simply mistaken. This is merely a case of two scientists trying to use a cheap trick to sex up a data presentation. They were not even altering the underlying data, only altering the scale of the graph to make it look less harmful to their own particular version of global warming theory. The fact is that the underlying data is not corrupted because these persons were not and are not the keepers of the international data. Further, there is no one source of data -- it comes from a variety of sources. Many of these sources are not subject to political pressures, such as NASA. These two buffoons are merely two scientists who failed at their moral duty to use clear, accurate and transparent scientific arguments. Their failure does not alter the work of others any more than one bad minister or priest could alter the mighty works of God.
...
written by John Weekley , November 24, 2009 Below are some interesting articles on what happened. I haven't finished reading all of the actual emails, yet. But, I've read enough to understand these people didn't mind using deceit to force an inaccurate conclusion, and set about to silence those who disagreed with them. Others have accused Global Warming advocates of the same thing several times before. This isn't "science"; it's a form of hoaxing. For the reason, Sen. Inhofe on Environment and Pubic Works is calling for an investigation of "ClimateGate". This appears to have gone far beyond a couple of guys playing games with the numbers. ======================== ------------------------ WSJ: Climate Emails Stoke Debate "Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html -------------------- "Climategate: 'Greatest scandal in modern science'..." Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ -------------------- "Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers... " EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/ ---------------------
...
written by Shadrach , November 24, 2009 John: The process of getting research published in a peer reviewed journal is the process of seperating the wheat from the chaff. The Washington Times and Blogger are sources that lack gravitas. The Wall Street Journal piece is from a credible outlet and still makes the mistake, repeated in many conservative outlets of describing Prof. Latif's work as showing cooling, when Latif's research shows a plateau, but no actual reduction. Even so, make no mistake that e-mails exists from scholars both left and right, trying to keep bad research from being published. If you were to hack, say, the University of Chicago School of Economics, I am certain that there would be similar e-mails that show (1) attempts to keep papers from being published; (2) that are based on the content of the research; and, (3) that show anger, contempt, and downright strong-arm tactics. This is not sinister. This is what it means to be peer reviewed. Now, let’s take a look at the person that the WSJ article’s Global Warming Scientists were so angry at – Patrick Michaels. His main avenue of communication is the popular media and using op-ed pieces to question other scientists work. Since continuing to challenge that CFC’s were the source of the Ozone hole even after that issue had been resoundingly decided, Michaels has the M.O. of taking corporate money and then producing science that supports the continuation of the current corporate status quo. Yet when his work is challenged, he threatens to file lawsuits squelching his opponents’ free speech. http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/censorship/ In layman’s terms, this guy is the Glenn Beck of global warming science --a lot of words, but not much real evidence to back to the tears. Yes, there are legitimate global warming skeptics. But the vast majority of the global warming skeptics have the gravitas of tobacco industry “scientists” that asserted for decades that there was no “real proof” that cigarettes cause cancer. The problem is that in this area, while there is bad science and bad scientists on all sides – if they are human they are subject to these human flaws – the fact is that the majority of global warming skepticism is clearly politically or commercially motivated, and is often written by scientists outside of their area of specialty. It is hard to be published inside your area even when you agree with the majority of your peers, but when you disagree with your peers and are attacking them from the outside, you better have your ducks in a row. Further, when your research is paid for by the oil and coal lobby, scientists have a right to question your motivation.
...
written by John Weekley , November 25, 2009 The original story was published in the U.S. by "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post". I'm okay with "The Washington Times", although I have more confidence in the work of some reporters than others. Also, don't forget that it was the Blogs and the "pajamahudeen" that brought down Dan Rather and CBS over a hoax story about George W. Bush and the Texas Air National Guard. This story is now running on several U.K. publications, and I understand Scotland Yard has entered the fray. I DO know the emails have been authenticated and are now public information in their entirety (of whatever the hackers say they have). Others, who are more familiar with the players in this conspiracy, say these are not at all minor actors in the climate warming community, and indeed have been major collaborators with people like Al Gore. I don't think this, alone, proves global warming is a hoax. But, it's alarming when significant sources in the scientific community are caught not only fabricating reports for purposes of proving something that is not true, but discuss fraud as though it is an ordinary every day occurrence.
...
written by John Weekley , November 29, 2009 I cannot take credit for this. It was written by someone who does deal with climate science and historic global temperatures: "Please consider the following: Approximately 97% of CO2 generated yearly is not anthropogenic, but natural. That CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and that water vapor is far and away the dominant greenhouse gas. That peaks of CO2 associated with past warming events FOLLOWED warming because warmer sea waters released CO2. In other words, CO2 is a result of warming and not a primary cause. That warming trends follow solar cycles very closely. That the field of Chaos was discovered by early attempts to model weather, and that weather is a very complex system currently not well understood despite claims to the contrary. That the earth is presently in a CO2 starved condition relative to much of its geologic past. That CO2 is necessary for life, and that plants which use CO2 for photosynthesis thrive with elevated CO2. That warm is good for the biosphere and always has been. That looking at the temperature data, which I have, there is nothing special at all about the present. We are currently living in the latter part of the most recent interglacial period, and that the Earth is significantly cooler than for much of its history dating back 600 million years. That a graph of temperatures over the past 20,000 years show both long and short term trends with the short term patterns looking something like a saw blade. There is nothing happening at present that has not happened countless times before. Except for the shameless effort to take advantage of a scientifically misinformed public. Science is not a scam. most scientists are serious about their discipline and their integrity. The deceptions described in the article are only made necessary by the lack of real data to support these outrageous claims. In a few weeks, the purveyors of this hoax(and it is a hoax), will attempt in Copenhagen to get us to subjugate our economy and sovereignty to an international authority to combat "climate change". This is far too serious a matter to be so lightly regarded by our press and I would like to see this newspaper acknowledge that there are serious problems with the entire climate change industry and that the conduct described in the article should result in prosecution for fraud." Write comment
|
|
Allegedly, some of the world's top climate scientists have been manipulating data on global warming, which has been exposed after hundreds of private emails were stolen and posted online.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
