|
|
| Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true (526706) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (526706) | |
Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 12:44:51 2009 At least it appears there's now evidence that AGW scientists knowingly put forth theories which they knew their science did not back up:http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/ipcc-scientists-hacked-emails-leaked-damning.html IPCC scientists hacked, emails leaked, damning… A major story is breaking in climate science, after hackers posted a 61 megabyte data file on a Russian server that appears to be confidential emails and climate data hacked from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre. The data raises major questions about the role of scientists in what appears to be a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the public: From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk If there's an innocent explanation, I'll be interested in hearing it. In the meantime I've sent an email to Phil Jones asking if this email is genuine. For those interested, the large file can be downloaded here [UPDATE, file removed from server. Have decided not to re-link in case some of the new ones around have been modified. I have a copy of the original. You can check out some of the alternative download links at Watts, but checksum the file as per their instructions to ensure it is the original] UPDATE: Am busy on the TGIF deadline so have only generally perused the leaked emails. It appears to be a collection that might have been prepared for a possible FOIA (freedom of information) request and were in the process of being scrutinized. The tone of many is quite waspish, although like others the email above seems too damning to be true. Surely they weren't that stupid to commit such comments to writing back in 1999? UPDATE 2: One of the emails refers to stacking the peer-review process to ensure scientific papers by the likes of NZ's Chris de Freitas don't make it past review into the IPCC's 2007 AR4. The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Shocking. Lends authenticity to the documents as well – a US or European based hacker would not be likely to pluck de Freitas' name out of thin air if they were making something up. UPDATE 3: This email from RealClimate's organ grinders illustrates a deliberate effort to prevent anything too challenging from being allowed on their website: From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa Subject: update Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500 Reply-to: mann@xxx Cc: Gavin Schmidt guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go there personally, but so I'm informed). Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include. You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC comments as a megaphone… mike - BTW, to pre-empt charges that the data is fake, Hadley now confirms it's real: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html Let the cognitive dissonance party begin! |
|
|
| (526717) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Nov 20 12:59:25 2009, in response to Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 12:44:51 2009. And your point is what? Let's assume this is all true, for the sake of argument.There's no reason to believe scientists are more honest on average than bank tellers, or priests, or police officers, to pick some occupations at random. Tobacco company funded scientists faked data for years. They were a major distraction but they didn't prevent the development of a worldwide scientific consensus that smoking cause lung cancer. |
|
|
| (526721) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 13:08:39 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by AlM on Fri Nov 20 12:59:25 2009. And your point is what?Do I really have to spell it out for you? Let's assume this is all true, for the sake of argument. Then my side wins. AGW is not a threat. Cap & trade is dead. Green jobs are unnecessary. We burn more coal, we drill for more oil. Debate over. Who wants pie? You really need to see some of these e-mails, and Google the names of those who sent them. This is to AGW as the Pentagon Papers were to the Vietnam War. |
|
|
| (526733) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Nov 20 13:42:03 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 13:08:39 2009. You think the entire theory that human activity influences global temperature is based on the data collected by one lab? |
|
|
| (526746) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 15:33:00 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by AlM on Fri Nov 20 13:42:03 2009. You think the entire theory that human activity influences global temperature is based on the data collected by one lab?If the data collected by one of the most highly "respected" labs being suspect means nothing, then I have a deal of a lifetime for you pertaining to a particular East River bridge. Time to go into bunker mode. Deny, deflect and disparage. It's gonna suck for your kind, I was in that bunker for the better part of the last 8 years. |
|
|
| (526755) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 20 15:44:54 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 15:33:00 2009. You're still in that bunker about your exam score and list number. |
|
|
| (526757) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Nov 20 15:50:24 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 15:33:00 2009. Data collected by one highly respected lab neither means nothing, nor does it mean everything.You just don't understand how scientists work. A result shown by only one lab is not generally accepted - it has to be reproduceable. On the other hand, science fraud does have ill effects - other scientists tentatively assume the result is correct while trying to reproduce it, and they get diverted onto the wrong paths. So we'll see. If they are shown to have committed fraud it certainly sets the science back a few years, as everyone figures out what is still agreed upon after all that lab's results are thrown out. But it doesn't mean that results from other labs are wrong. |
|
|
| (526758) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 15:53:56 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by AlM on Fri Nov 20 15:50:24 2009. You just don't understand how scientists work.Apparently not. If there is something in the scientific process which excuses obfuscation and agenda-driven bias, please teach me how it works. |
|
|
| (526799) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Nov 20 16:51:40 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 15:53:56 2009. Hmm. Reading comprehension problems again? |
|
|
| (526804) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 20 16:56:28 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 15:53:56 2009. It's called funding ... you get the results you pay for. Later, comes the "scientific method" where your paper gets deckled with bulletholes. |
|
|
| (526809) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 17:01:46 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by AlM on Fri Nov 20 16:51:40 2009. What reading comprehension problems? Are you reading these leaked e-mails? Just about every leading global warming proponent is involved with the few I've personally read. That includes Michael Mann, with his infamous hockey stick graph that proponents have been bashing over the heads of skeptics for the better part of a decade. The science behind this graph has already been debunked by those who know better, but now we have evidence that Mann deliberately manipulated data to provide a sensational result.Stop spinning, before you fall off. |
|
|
| (526810) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 17:03:32 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 20 16:56:28 2009. So you're basically stating that all scientific data in the AGW debate is worthless, manufactured to serve the interests of those funding it?Welcome to my side of the fence! I've been saying this for years! |
|
|
| (526815) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Nov 20 17:06:44 2009, in response to Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 12:44:51 2009. Frothing at the mouth because of what you found on some website? Let's wait a few days and see if any if this is true. And even if it is, as someone else said, it's one lab. This hardly will debunk anything. |
|
|
| (526859) | |
Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 20 17:40:29 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 17:03:32 2009. Your side has their own kooks ... that's why the "scientific method" requires repeatability and documentation to prove it. Here's the real problem ... the MEDIA will read any copy placed on the teleprompter without bothering to test the experiment. Plus, just to add to the drama, they bookmark one place in time of something that's dynamic to prove the point of the news director's political viewpoints.Therefore, the proper answer is "none of the above." |
|
|
| (527263) | |
More: The AGW scandal widens |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Nov 21 14:23:19 2009, in response to Re: Bombshell: sometimes conspiracy theories are true, posted by italianstallion on Fri Nov 20 17:06:44 2009. Hmmmm, I thought you'd invoke the authenticity spin, not the "wait and see" spin.Some facts: - The e-mails are authentic, at least the ones posted to the Russian server. - The e-mails involve more than one lab, they involve almost every major figure in AGW-land. Many are communications from CRU scientists to their colleagues outside CRU. For some specifics on what exactly was in these hacked e-mails, go here. Some of it is technical and beyond the layman's understanding, but enough exists which is easily understandable to anyone who can read: # Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122) # Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075) # Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064) # Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257) # Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257) # Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277) # Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975) # Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806) It just goes on and on. What cannot be denied is that there was a deliberate attempt to squelch scientific dissent, in just about every form (lying, firing dissenting scientists, character assasination, etc.) |
|
|
