These quotes are from the Telegraph. You can download all the emails on Megaupload or have a glance at them on this forum.
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.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Holy good phuk do the idiots have their panties in a knot.
#1, 2, 3, 4,
When you depend upon blogs to get your news, you know something is wrong. NO major news outlet is following this story for three reasons I can gather. First, the “released” emails have not been authenticated as correct. Second, emails are generally more informal and words usually take a wider meaning than in a more formal setting. Third, the emails are stolen property and publishing them may be illegal.
But since when has the right wing nuts ever cared about law and order when it didn’t suit their ends.
#10, Greg Allen,
Who should we believe? All the best scientists or the nutcase anti-science bloggers?
… hmm… that’s a hard call.
Great line.
#21, Glass,
A very good post that sums up the problem with thee entire right wing in general and the right wing nuts in specific. Scientific process are really just a conspiracy to “raise taxes”.
#23, Dr. Dudd,
Right Wing Christians? That would be false advertising since last I heard everyone is welcome.
Only those who are white middle class or rich are more welcome than the poor, black, hispanic, native American, or orientals. Most right wing Christians do deny man made climate change as it “jes ain’t in the good book”.
#27 & 28, Dennis,
Geeze, you’re just weird. I wonder if anyone else understood your post.
#29, MarT,
I love science. It is only that this science is premature and has been hijacked by politicians that want to mold society and raise taxes. That is a dangerous mix.
So when the “science” disagrees with your political bent then it must be the science that is wrong. Instead of governments, the people’s representatives setting policy, you want to continue to have the large energy companies set policy as they continue to plunder the wealth through excessive profits.
#39, MarkT,
An opinion editorial is not a citation source.
#40, Father,
It takes more energy to produce and transport food (vegies) than the food contains!
Comparing apples and oranges. Try consuming some crude oil for your nutritional needs. And what does this have to do with the discussion?
#50, GF,
Whatever the hell that discredited WaPo column has to do with this discussion is something only a ditto head can answer.
#52, Lyin’ Mike,
From one of the e-mails complaining about the use of tree-rings to produce temperature records:
You have no idea about the problem with tree rings yet want to use that as an issue.
#57, dunderhead,
In speaking about geothermal energy, Al Gore recently said that the earth’s core is millions of degrees and thus provides energy.
Even a 5th grader knows or could even guess that nothing can reach that temperature anywhere in the entire universe of “millions of degrees”.
So Gore mispoke on the actual temperature. Instead of listening to what he said, you harp on ONE word. No wonder you’re an idiot.
@Mr. Fusion (#66),
Front page of the New York Times website today so the MSM is following this story.
Washington Post Article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html?hpid=sec-tech
A scientific model is one that explains what we see and makes predictions that are measurable. If the predictions come out wrong then there is something wrong with the model.
The biggest problem is that, from the very beginning, politicians and scientists have used only part of the data to verify their models and any data that contradicts their model is NOT considered e.g. the hockey stick and the medievel warming period.
Another problem with climate science is that it’s all about money. If I’m a scientist studying frogs, I put in a grant proposal with the title “The Effect of Climate Change on Frogs” to get funded.
It is OK not to believe in man made climate change because having a different opinion is ok. Why, because we have not seen conclusive evidence that man made climate change is real or not because scientists and politicians keep silencing everyone who has a different opinion. Everyone thought that creationism was right till they decided it was ok to discuss evolution. I am likening climate change supporters with creationists and skeptics with evolutionists!
Until we can have an OPEN debate then I will refuse to accept climate change.
@ #62 pedro said, on November 21st, 2009 at 6:26 am
#61 Right, because the sun will be pacified and reduce its output if enough carbon credits are given to it as a sacrifice.
Would the sacrifice of a virgin or two help?
to which we have the response,
#65, pedro said, on November 21st, 2009 at 7:27 am
#62 Oh, shut up already and put your money were your mouth is. Go and give all your money to Gore. The planet depends on it.
How’s that goat thing working out?
#67, ethanol,
And the <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hpNY Times publishing is very new too. It just might show someone bothered to look into the posted emails too, but it wasn’t there a little while ago.
Facts never persuaded a right wing nut he might be wrong.
RE #70,
oopps, looks like I screwed up the link.
To the New York Times article.
#70 Fusion,
Not all man-made global warming skeptics are right wing nuts, or even right wing for that matter. How does quoting a (really bad) NYT article which ethanol tipped you off to prove him wrong? You are not making any sense. It seems that this story has rocked your worldview so much that your computational processes are unraveling.
If you don’t like the comments here, do yourself a favor and read some from Slashdot. They have some good comments from all sides on this story.
How many of you have had any experience with research in a University setting and are surprised by this? When I was in school, I can say with some certainty that at least half of the papers written by my department had fudged facts. I was pressured several times to omit data and even lie based on flimsy assumptions about what was causing the aberrant data.
This is nothing new. I do not believe these emails prove that the idea of man made global warming is some kind of hoax. They do, however, serve as a reminder that scientists and researchers are rarely unbiased and do have their own motives to prove their work. ESPECIALLY when their work is being funded by governments who have a political stake in using this issue to gain more power.
Grant money will always flow to people who those who can present new ideas and show data to back them up. And it is much easier to back up ideas riding on already published and accepted works.
It is very rare to see research that shows a new idea actually will not work. If you have some serious credentials, you might be able to get a paper accepted that shows flaws in an old idea or theory, but will get you neither or praise from your peers. In my opinion, this is one of the great flaws in the way academic research is conducted. Showing a path is a bad one to go down is just as important as finding a new path.
#68 CDS1972
Exactly.
#66 Mr. Fusion
Please cite articles that refute the Washington Post article.
Also, it’s to bad you don’t understand the relevance.
This is so funny, watch the left’s heads explode trying to act like this is no big deal.
Oh and the right frothing at the mouth.
Nothing to see here
Hey look over there!
Weird…yeah, I guess the quotes from the emails are a bit vague.
I figured someone would figure it out, but in the age of “We have to tell you how to read and what it means” I guess I should have stated the email quotes more plainly.
As for what this means? To me it means that these folks wanted to keep GRANT money rolling in, and the only way to accomplish that was to ‘prove’ that what they were researching exists the way the grantors wanted to exist.
From the one email, where it states ‘all the data from 75-90 is MISSING’ and the several other quadruple dozen I sifted through, and the documents that were being referred to…it is pretty plain that they had to meet certain areas of affect, and when they did not have REAL data….well, they made it fit to get the GRANT MONEY.
As for Global Climate change? Sure, something is going on. But, rather than tax the people (citizens) why not Clean Up the pollution that is being dumped in our Air, our Oceans, and our land? Why not hold the Corporations that are doing it RESPONSIBLE for their actions?
Back in 91, when I got to watch the Oil Fires burning in the desert, no one questioned “Hmm, whats this going to do to the Air and Land and Water for this region?”….except a few persons that had to LIVE in it.
But then, that doesn’t concern you, as you just want the latest IGrod or new gadget to fill up the emptiness….
From: Obamaforever
To: Retards [aka anti-Climatic Change assholes, Repukes (conservative Republicans), birthers, tea baggers, Libertarians, etc.]
To: Cherman (aka I am just like Johnny (John C. Dvorak) in that I just love to pull anti-Climate-Change articles out of my ass-guy)
Dear Retards,
Please go to the following article:
msnbc.msn.com/id/34079149/ns/us_news-washington_post/
Read and learn Retards!!!!!!!!!!!!!
… but are they “peer reviewed” emails?
Who should we believe? All the scientists on the global warming payroll, whos’ livelihood depends on the Global Warming in crowd, or the open minded bloggers who look at the facts of a booming population of Polar Bears and 10 years of temperture decline?
… hmm… that’s a hard call.
To put it differently – Do you trust Fat Al?
I don’t…
Who should we believe? All the scientists on the global warming payroll, whos’ livelihood depends on the Global Warming in crowd, or the open minded bloggers who look at the facts of a booming population of Polar Bears and 10 years of temperture decline?
… hmm… that’s a hard call.
To put it differently – Do you trust Fat Al?
I don’t…
From: Obamaforever
To: Retards [aka Brock and 01001010 (spells “stupid’ in code)]
per #78, #79, #80
I do not think you Retards read the article (see #78).
Please read the article and get your head out of your collective ass.
I read the article. The difference between you and I is… I understood it.
#81, my post #83 was directed at you. I thought I should make that perfectly clear since you have trouble deducing the obvious.
This is just sickening. Obamaforver, have you read ANY of the emails? Where are the posters who said this could never happen?
Peer reviewed papers soon to be available in double roll economy size, but much harsher than the leading brand.
From Tom Wigley:
” Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.”
From: Obamaforever
To: ASSHOLE (aka 01001010) and all the other Retards
I have read the article. It says that the emails were taken out of context.
One can conclude from your statements that you wrote the emails (or at least some of the emails) and/or you have a PhD in climatology.
Please provide proof that you wrote some or all of the emails and provide proof that you have a PhD in climatology.
Until then shut the fxxx up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#85, time for your meds. After you’ve calmed down, read the email I posted in #84 and comment on it. Please explain how you justify falsifying data.
Re#86, #87 was for you …again.
>used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”
Yes, and the trick here was to ‘hide the decline’. They didn’t want the charts to show a decline, so they added on real temperatures after 1960, then used these to average in with the proxy values, thus affecting earlier values as well. Also, the guy who wrote the e-mail got it wrong. He referred to Nature trick, but it was actually a paper in GRL the next year that used that trick.
What “global warming deniers” (as it has been colorfully called here) advocate for is making an informed decision on these grand issues. Thats it, and investing so much of your emotional self into your arguments only works to strengthen our resolve, because by definition, emotion is not logical.
Assuming we could all agree that the earth is warming, far from it considering the current cooling trend, we would still have to measure that up against the global cooling scares of the resent past not to mention the global warming scare before that starting all the way back in the late 1800s. On top of that we are to believe that which ever way the temperature is going is our fault, with no more evidence that because we are here to see it…the earth isn’t set on a thermostat, flipping out over a possible fraction of a degree change over the coarse of a hundred year is the definition of insanity. Its actually amazing the temperatures are as stable as they are, and you would expect change over time.
Agreeing to a multinational treaty that will cost untold amounts of money, further crippling our economy, on the basis of a so far unproven hypothesis is ludicrous.
From: Obamaforever
To: stupid pieces of crap (aka 01001010 and MikeN)
01001010, I thought I told you to shut the fxxx up. You did not provide proof that you wrote any of the emails and you did not provide proof you have a PhD in climatology and thus you were told to shut up, retard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since I did not write the emails or have a PhD in climatology I cannot know if the data is false or not.
Retard, if you think the data is false please provide proof that the data is false.
MikeN, you are just plain stupid!!!!!!
It’s truly amazing that anyone would give this much blind faith and trust to anyone, let alone the government. Can someone please give me one good reason to blindly follow and defend the government?
Please name one single solitary thing government has done efficiently and effectively to have earned this pure dedication that so many on this board have?
From: Obamaforever
To: Derek
We are talking about “science’ and not “government”.
Please read your dictionary for the definition of “science” and “government”.
You are beyond hope, tea bagger!!!!!!!!!!!
To: anti-Climate-Change retards
It looks like I got the last word.
It feels soooooooooooo goooooooooood!!!!
#86, “stooopid”,
OK, so you “quoted” some text. Can you explain it and tell us what paper it showed up in?
#75, cranky geek,
How many of you have had any experience with research in a University setting and are surprised by this? When I was in school, I can say with some certainty that at least half of the papers written by my department had fudged facts
Ya, I heard that happens a lot in Elementary Schools. [/sarcasm] I know that when I went to school if you were ever caught fudging facts, you ended up with a goose egg for a mark. No exceptions. I even heard of being kicked out of a program.
They do, however, serve as a reminder that scientists and researchers are rarely unbiased and do have their own motives to prove their work. ESPECIALLY when their work is being funded by governments who have a political stake in using this issue to gain more power.
Spoken like a schizophrenic fool. Instead of pointing out where these scientists are wrong, you suggest they must be because they take government money and government want more power. They HAVE to be biased because you don’t like them or their conclusions.
Typical wing nut philosophy. I confess, even the far left does that conspiracy stuff too.
Grant money will always flow to people who those who can present new ideas and show data to back them up. And it is much easier to back up ideas riding on already published and accepted works.
I and most graduate students wish that is how grant money is distributed. I guess your grant was denied.
My own experience was that grants depended upon several factors, including; the grantees alma mater, the stature of the professor, commercial possibilities, even the status of the school.
It is very rare to see research that shows a new idea actually will not work. If you have some serious credentials, you might be able to get a paper accepted that shows flaws in an old idea or theory, but will get you neither or praise from your peers.
I disagree. This happens all the time. You present your research and I tear that research apart. If it withstands the scrutiny, your research is accepted. If errors (hopefully inadvertent) are found they can be corrected and the paper adjusted as needed.
As much can be learned from trying to dispute an idea as went into creating it in the first place. “Why” is the best thinking promoter.
Unfortunately those that willfully resort to fudging facts seldom understand how this works. Liars usually are found out when they forget which facts they fudged.