Climate gate 2, it gets better and better, not warmer and warmer...

[billc]

Here is an article on 5000 more leaked e-mails that show that the climate scientists in charge of global warming research did destroy data, smear critics and tried to get their research from being printed in the peer reviewed journals...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...tists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html

Yet one of the newly released emails, written
by Prof. Jones - who is working with the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on
the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.



'I’ve discussed

 

[billc]

From Forbes on climate gate 2...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent
scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal
rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists
view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific
inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much
of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and
data.

 

[Makalakumu]

I read about this article and the controversy and you beat me to posting it, Bill. A long time ago, I believed that science could be above politics. A dose of reality curbed my idealism to the point where now I wonder if it matters if something is presented using scientific language. This potential misuse of the label "science" could do irreparable damage to our society.

 

[Josh Oakley]

If it involves people and money, you can bet it involves politics of some kind.

 

[Tez3]

The shame of it is that it's stopping real discussion on climate change. Observers with no bone to pick have all noted that the climate is changing but this sort of stuff stops the discussion being meaningful on whether we have caused it, whether it's a natural turn in our climate, a mixture of both and perhaps more importantly what we can do about areas affected by climate change. While the scientists and politicians argue over it, there are real serious changes going on that need to be looked at.
I'd hardly say things were getting better and better as in the OP, for many things are getting worse while the politicians and scientists slug it out in their nice air conditioned offices with water coolers and food on call.

 

[oftheherd1]

It makes no difference what the "scientific" study is about. The first thing you need to try and do is follow the money. Few scientists are wealthy enough to fund their own research. So if the coffee industry, or their lobbyists, fund research on coffee, and you hear about it, you can be sure it is only favorable research. You won't get a lot of grants if your research is not favorable to those who fund it. And professors who bring lots of grants to their university (not where all research is done, but much of it), can expect more job security. Sad but true.

I don't mean to say that all research is automatically biased toward the people who fund it, but if you are hearing about it, it may well be. All I'm really saying is be cautious who funds it. I used coffee because there has been a lot lately reported in the news about all the health benefits from coffee. Why, its almost as efficatious as gin seng (which probably does have some benefits). ;-)

 

[Empty Hands]

You won't get a lot of grants if your research is not favorable to those who fund it. And professors who bring lots of grants to their university (not where all research is done, but much of it), can expect more job security. Sad but true.

Most basic research in the US is funded by public money, not private.

 

[Makalakumu]

Out of all the flame wars that have been waged on the internet about global warming, did I just see the whole thing die without a whimper?

Does this completely discredit anthropromorhic climate change as a theory?

 

[billc]

I don't think that it does, a theory is a theory after all. I think that the automatic assumption that it is occurring while scientists hide data and smear critics may be coming to an end. Now perhaps real research can begin. Also, the techniques and equipment to accurately monitor climate will keep improving and scientists will have to be even more dedicated to dispassionate research rather than political/religous environmental zealotry.

 

[Makalakumu]

Think about what this means. The government and scientists basically colluded to create an excuse for a new type of tax. This tax would be on the very air we breath. That is a whole new level of bad.

 

[billc]

But...but...they did it for a good reason...do you know how many billions of dollars the climate change industry makes each year on bankrupt solar panel companies alone? Not to mention the gauranteed loans on electric cars that start on fire, and the light bulb industry...in China, since they put the domestic light bulb industry out of business. How can you complain about good works like that Makalakumu?

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm more worried about the time when we really need good science and nobody trusts it any more.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[Master Dan]

I read about this article and the controversy and you beat me to posting it, Bill. A long time ago, I believed that science could be above politics. A dose of reality curbed my idealism to the point where now I wonder if it matters if something is presented using scientific language. This potential misuse of the label "science" could do irreparable damage to our society.

The only real thing you can count on is that all data can be used to support any position left right up or down what you need to do is look who is interpreting and publishing the position and what is thier bias money politics or both. In the 70's at college we were instructed that all print and broadcast media was suspect and could be influenced by covert government aggendas so just because you see it or read does not make it so?

As one who has lived near or above the Artic Circle for the last 16 years I can personally tell you that global warming is real and any Eskimo Elder will tell you the same. Is that all bad not necessarily if the NW passage opens fully for commercial traffic it will have environmental impact but a much needed boost to our economy. The last 5 years boats of all sizes even cruize ships have come through and last year even a 12 million dollar yacht i personally was on and talked with the Ice Pilot and they saw no ice at all as a problem. Yes climate tends to swing extreme both ways cold and warm but the overall average is dramatically up every year for us its paradise more fish more game nicer weather in the summer and i feel bad for those in the lower 48 the extremes in heat and winter they are experiencing but no global weather change or warming? just look at the insurance actuaries for the last 10 years.

In the end however there is no point trying to convince anyone of anything who only wants to have thier own values and preconcieved positions verified with facts of any kind. Water or lack there of, Wind Heat Fires and Mother Nature will do that nicely.
Of course Chemical companies will deny there is anything wrong with the toxins in our foods and products, Drug companies will say its safe to take this or that untill enough people die they have to admit there is a problem because profit is the only motivation they have. Only government can legislate or regulate moral wellfare and honesty in science and business for the wellfare of the majority which would seem an oximoron these days because government has ceased to be government but influence and regulation for sale to the highest bidder.

 

[billc]

Well, since people are living longer...

 

[billc]

This is what happens when you expose BIG CLIMATE...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/british_police_raid_climategate_bloggers_home.html

And now a second batch of e-mails has appeared at CA and at a couple of other sites, particularly Tallbloke's Talkshop. They are even more damning than the last - and the Empire decided to strike back.
Police in England raided Tallbloke's home, seizing his computers.
Tallbloke, McIntyre, and Jeff Id at Airvent all received the following from the U.S. DOJ:

Ron De Haan notes at Sullivan's Travelers:

That the crackdown has been directed at exactly these three Skeptic Climate Blogs is no coincidence.
The Air Vent received the first batch of ClimateGate e-mails shortly before the opening of the Copenhagen Climate Meeting and together with Tallbloke's Talkshop they received the second release shortly before the Durban Climate Meeting.
Steve McIntyre from Climate Audit has been responsible for debunking the infamous hockey stick graph from Michael Mann and caused the UN IPCC lot's of headaches with his sharp analysis.
I wondered why the ClimateGate II e-mails are so much different from the ClimateGate I e-mails that they have triggered this crackdown and the answer is evident when we take a closer look at an e-mail with the number 5310 I found as a posting at Musings from the Chiefio. The ClimateGate I e-mails were limited to communication between scientists.
This time the e-mails contain the names of political leaders, government departments, institutions and... a potentially explosive content.
​

A Freedom of Information request produced some interesting results. to see a message thread involving government people and people from the University of East Anglia strategizing on how best to present things to the public, go here.
The thread shows that the British government was colluding with scientists . Be sure to note the e-mail addresses.

 

[Tez3]

This is what happens when you expose BIG CLIMATE...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/british_police_raid_climategate_bloggers_home.html

Colluding with the British Government? Those emails are from 2004, that's not even this government. There's no proof btw that these are genuine, I have a 'government' email address and civil service emails don't read like those not then or now. Nothing here actually proves anything, it's all babble.

 

[Makalakumu]

Colluding with the British Government? Those emails are from 2004, that's not even this government. There's no proof btw that these are genuine, I have a 'government' email address and civil service emails don't read like those not then or now. Nothing here actually proves anything, it's all babble.

It needs to be investigated. You have to see it with your own eyes to believe it.

That said, who is going to do the investigating? When the government is implicated in a possible crime, can you trust the same government to investigate itself? The last climategate investigation was performed by people with far to many connections to those implicated. This isn't justice you can trust, IMO.

 

[Tez3]

It needs to be investigated. You have to see it with your own eyes to believe it.

That said, who is going to do the investigating? When the government is implicated in a possible crime, can you trust the same government to investigate itself? The last climategate investigation was performed by people with far to many connections to those implicated. This isn't justice you can trust, IMO.

However if you click on to the link that contains the 'government' emails there's nothing to reference them as being true emails from the people concerned, it's just a typed up page up. I could write something and tell you it's a government email, how would you know? That's my point, before even wanting an investigation I'd like some clear proof not a printed page. This is the first couple of lines and proves nothing, it could just have been typed up by anyone. I'm not defending anyone, I'd just like more proof, to me as someone that uses the government email system and intranet it doesn't look correct.

"date: Thu Jul 15 14:11:56 2004
from: Mike Hulme <[email protected]>
subject: Fwd: RE: Science Article
to: a.minns,anderson_Kevin"

 

[Makalakumu]

However if you click on to the link that contains the 'government' emails there's nothing to reference them as being true emails from the people concerned, it's just a typed up page up. I could write something and tell you it's a government email, how would you know? That's my point, before even wanting an investigation I'd like some clear proof not a printed page. This is the first couple of lines and proves nothing, it could just have been typed up by anyone. I'm not defending anyone, I'd just like more proof, to me as someone that uses the government email system and intranet it doesn't look correct.

"date: Thu Jul 15 14:11:56 2004
from: Mike Hulme <[email protected]>
subject: Fwd: RE: Science Article
to: a.minns,anderson_Kevin"

There's only so much you can do with a thread like this. I think there needs to be some kind of investigation, but I'm not sure who I would want investigating the matter. It's all a side effect of science becoming political. I think this is going to do major damage to the whole idea that science is something that can transcend politics and be objective.

 

[Empty Hands]

I think this is going to do major damage to the whole idea that science is something that can transcend politics and be objective.

Science is the worst possible means of being objective that we have. Except for all the other methods.