Read it and weep: WWW.DRUDGEREPORT.COM
The extent of this fraud is amazing-we have evidence of outright destruction of data, evidence of collusion (in suppressing acdemic data), and conspiracy.
So, do the revelations exposed by the hackers invalidate the AGW proponents?:smack:
Moving to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
The short answer: absolutely not. The evidence for AGW goes far beyond the research produced by a single institution.
Hmmm. Have any of the documents in question been verified? All I can seem to find is claims about an unnamed hacker breaking into an email system, then releasing some sensational-sounding documents to the press. Can we be sure he didn’t just make it all up?
If the conspiracy was as deep and blatantly wilful as is being suggested, how on earth was the lid kept on it until now?
Same old, I still remember several years ago yet another report that claimed AGW was a hoax, seems that it did not turn to be that way as some need to remind us once again.
By that logic there are no conspiracy theories since if there are they all would have been revealed.
No. Not a hoax. I think this shows that the issue has unfortunately veered from science to politics and we need to be very careful about what we believe and accept.
Personally, I’m sure we have an effect on the planet.
-Clean and efficient energy production is a worthy goal in itself.
-Waste is bad.
-Pollution is bad.
-Conserving resources is good.
Whether or not the temperature is going up or down or Manhattan is going to sink into the ocean or not doesn’t change this. That being said, unfortunately climate change is no longer science. It’s politics and religion.
Oddly enough, the ethics I’ve outlined above serve me quite well in the absence of certainty.
Got a thread here on the subject:
Ralph. You need to stop believing everything you read on the internet.
-Joe
No. Let’s try again:
Do you see that I was not talking about all conspiracies? I was expressing doubt that a conspiracy of this supposed magnitude could remain intact.
Of interest, Real Climate’s report on the UEA hack – which apparently did not affect Hadley CRU’s servers.
Of course there are conspiracies in real life, and sometimes they are revealed. There is a whole body of criminal law for dealing with them. The kind of conspiracies posited by conspiracy theories – international conspiracies shaping the course of history over several generations – are never plausible, precisely because it would be impossible to keep anything that big, involving that many people, secret for that long.
At minimum, AGW has taken a serious credibility broadside.
“Climategate”: Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists
Including that.
I’m curious what makes the OP happier - that his grandchildren won’t die of skin cancer, or that some filthy liberal scum were proven wrong.
Assuming, of course, the claim about AGW is true.
I think the truth is that there’s an awful lot of fabrication and willful ignorance on both sides of this issue. And a great deal of it smacks more of knee-jerk religion than rational thought.
Well, it is a funny religion that one that had to hunt for evidence for many years to then convince most scientists.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Long history yes, but one has to say that the willful ignorance is not coming from climate researchers.
Nor from most physicists, meteorologists, and other researchers.
It isn’t news to me that scientists get petty, and hyperbolic when describing those who detract from the work they have done.
If the entire weight of evidence for global climate change, and human involvement in it were based on proxy data models of the type most prominently featured in the “scandal” being discussed, it would be a significant argument that AGW was seriously flawed. But that is not the case, and a lot of evidence not under the consideration by the UEA’s CRU also supports the fundamental contention that climate change is happening, and the effect is global.
The harsh facts of climate science are that it is presently not at a sufficiently mature state that any sort of unified authoritative body can exist. I don’t find that troubling. Academic hierarchies are not likely to improve the quality of research, and politics has no place in science. However both of them have a lot to do with who gets money. No news there.
The “trick” so prominently displayed, by the way, is one of several methods used to eliminate proxy evidence results that are known to produce false data. The reason that proxy method fails at that particular point in history is not known. It is known that the results given by following that particular proxy (Tree rings) goes wrong in 1960. So, various statistical methods are used to replace the data in that critical period with actual recorded data, and the results of that change are then examined to create models for future changes. Is that a questionable method? Well, I think so. But it was no where near the conspiracy to defraud the world public that has been suggested. Proxy models are not that great. I happen to favor the instrument record, wherever it can be referenced. But that record is very short, and very local to the northern hemisphere. But the instrument record agrees quite closely with the projections of the past, although according to them, Global Climate Change is more rapid than was predicted in the First IPCC reports.
The fact of a criminal invasion of the proprietary is not much referenced by the Drudge Report. In a court the testimony of a thief on the nature of the work stolen is suspect. If he could steal it, he could add to it, or subtract from it, or entirely fabricate as much of it as he wanted. I can’t consider this theft a credible addition to even the very narrow part of the AGW evidence. I don’t expect that to be a common view.
Tris
OK what does AGW mean? Linking to the front page of the drudge report is about as effective as linking to CNN.COM for ‘breaking news’.
“Anthropogenic global warming” (that is, not just that the climate is changing, but specifically that it’s changing because of what humans are doing).
How on earth did the University of East Anglia end up being considered so important?