Washington Post Publishes On Hacked Global Warming Letters

This is really the first breakthrough of this story into the mainstream media:

While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.

Note the bolded section.
Global warming alarmists are fond of talking about their “scientific consensus” on anthropogenic global warming. And as the Washington Post notes, the “scientists” (i use the scare quotes because real scientists invite criticism and peer-review of their findings and research) caught up in this scandal were the ones responsible for controlling the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC.
The group that, along with Al Gore, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
Not only were these “scientists” acting to keep any global warming skepticism out of the IPCC reports, they were keeping the work of global warming skeptics from being published anywhere through bullying and intimidation.
And the Washington Post doesn’t even mention the worse parts of the emails (which you can download for yourself here). There are multiple instances of people being encouraged to delete data and reports rather than turn them over to the public for scrutiny. There are also attempts to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests aimed at getting some of this information disclosed so that it could be reviewed by objective experts.
Perhaps worst of all are the blunt discussions about manipulating data to achieve desired results.
These “scientists” caught in this scandal were employed in a effort to deceive the public. To keep we citizens of the world in the dark about the reality of their research in order to serve a larger political end. Which was the use of their phony, cooked research to enact a myriad of new taxes, regulations and a generalized expansion of government power.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array ronjon

    Then use it. It’s not the scientists’ job to present raw data to the general public is an easily digestable form. I certainly don’t expect astrophysicists to do the number crunching for me so that I can confirm/refute a conclusion about the accelerating expansion of the universe. If I’m skeptical then it’s up to me to do it myself or trust somebody else to do.

  • sayanything-203

    Rob,

    I have lived in the Atlanta area for more than 25 years. And of all the people I know, through my businesses, my church, the gym, the martial arts school, business and civic associations, my neighbors, and other friends and acquaintances, I don’t know of anyone who I think takes the Left’s shrieking about man-made global warming seriously.

  • sayanything-203

    Neiman,

    I’m not so sure about the “universally accepted” stuff. We survived the Malthusian scares of the 1970s with our free market economy intact… despite Jimmy Carter and his leftist minions. And the recent collapse of the Copenhagen “summit” is also reason to cheer.

    I think a more upbeat reading of history will show that by the time the Left has fully adopted a cause celebre and starts waving a banner as they march thru the streets toward the ramparts, the free market has already addressed and essentially solved the problem.

  • http://fu.com/ robert108

    Those who ignorantly believe in AGW are claiming that all climate is warming, not that there are local variations, as ellinas ignorantly tries to generalize to include the entire planet.
    That is exactly the sort of ignorance that supports superstitions like AGW.

    If AGW were true, it would be self-evident, and wouldn’t require all the lying, spinning and denying, along with falsified information(like the emails and failing to factor in the Medieval Warming Period into their computer projections) to sell it to the public.

  • HG

    I could understand that if the circumstances were a little different and the liberties of so many were not threatened, but in this case, at this point it seems completely indefensible.

  • HG

    Carrick,

    Why do these other researchers merely express dismay? Why not call ‘em out? What is preventing these other researchers from telling the truth? Why be so accommodating?

  • HG

    “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.” -Bastiat

    Subsequently, we have MMGW. Government funded science will yield biased political results at the expense of science.

  • sayanything-12

    Seriously, you could take a valium and stop the bristling and name calling yourself.

  • Neil Coy

    Anyone that think mankind has more than a minor effect on our climate has a monstrous ego. The climate changes taking place on this planet have been happening long before man populated Earth. Consider how much Sun affects our climate, not man.

  • sayanything-12

    My Dad has a couple pictures he took years apart in Alaska showing the glacial loss. He had been showing these two pictures for years, till I pointed out to him that the temperature in Alaska had actually cooled between the two images (as had global mean temperature so even teleconnections can’t be invoked here).

    Precipitation changes probably played a bigger role than temperature, unless it was just that the temperature had increased since the end of the Little Ice Age, and the glaciers were still responding to that. Again that’s not a man-made phenomenon though.

  • sayanything-12

    Even the global warmingnists say that the warming prior to 1980 was natural. Until roughly that period, anthropogenic CO2 was nearly offset by suflates (particulates that block sunlight and tend to cool the Earth).

    So yes, it warmed, but no humans weren’t responsible for it.

    Also, contrary to what a lot of people who don’t know better say, the theory predicts increased precipitation for areas like Greece due to its proximity to water (warmer temperatures = more moisture in the air=more precipitation).

    Probably regional changes in tree cover et al is playing a bigger role (land usage changes by humans) is responsible for the changes you’ve seen, if you want to blame human activity to it. (They are responsible for things like the loss of glacial on the slopes of Kiliminjaro for example, references available if you want to.)

  • sayanything-12

    This is patently false, ronjon.

    Many groups refuse to release their data, their metadata, their internal communications with a sufficient interval of time, although all three of these are not considered truly private, and in fact there are ethical requirements for their release.

    This whole mess started when Kevin Briffa refused to release his Yamal data set for over 10 years, and when he was finally forced to a few months ago, they found that much of the entire “hockey stick” reconstruction rested on just 12 trees in one small area.

    He claimed that he hadn’t personally cherry picked these twelve trees (that these were what were given to him). Well there are actually 96 trees in that data set that were released by the whistle blower, not just 12. So he lied even about that.

    These guys systematically lie, dodge, obfuscate, manipulate journals and journal editors, change the rules to allow self-referential sets of papers (two papers were accepted for publication shortly before IPCC AR4 that relied on each other…these were admitted in the emails to be “somewhat circular”) in that according to the rules should not have been included. And now almost every accusation made against them in the last five years have been confirmed.

    Spin that ronjon if you have the stomach for it.

  • sayanything-12

    Michael Mann (one of the founders of RC) is squarely in the middle of it, admitting manipulation and suppression of opposing viewpoints in his emails (almost to the point of out-right bragging about it).

    Even his own colleagues admit in emails which he isn’t part of that they have trouble with his lack of honesty at times.

    He’s in the thick of it, Gavin Schmidt not so much and now trying to repair his reputation and that of RC’s by allowing most emails through.

  • sayanything-287

    Bat, as I said under another thread, I don’t believe it makes any difference that the data does not support their thesis; they are such experts at deception and in a perverse way as one might admire the tricks of the devil, I have to admire their ability to forcefully tell a lie often enough and loudly enough that it has for most people become incontrovertible, unassailable Truth. Human Caused Global Warming has become so universally accepted, not for the strength of the actual data and despite the flawed conclusions, because it has been seen by those lusting after political power, even global political power that, world leaders are like crack addicts that cannot feel satisfied unless the foist this upon everyone so they might fulfill their insatiable lusts for power.

    That is not a very scientific response, but I think this matter is lost, there is no hope of turning around the global warming crowd that are in positions of national and global leadership positions.

  • sayanything-287

    In 15 days, perhaps a little more, we will have a barometer of how things will go in the future, at the U.N. Meeting Copenhagen, and it is my bet they go for a fairly serious level of global governance of Human Caused Greenhouse Gases that will show how universally true this has become to most of the world. I hope Bat is right and I am wrong, but I think the power and money involved with Global Warming will make it an accepted scientific fact, despite the mountains of data to the contrary. No opposing opinions will be allowed!

  • sayanything-203

    Let’s see… man-made global warming is now being shown to have been a scam, perpetrated by those who don’t mind if their frontman, AlGore, gets filthy rich as long as they get filthier rich; and AlGore himself is shown to be nothing more than a dumb, self-righteous blowhard.

    So, where’s the news here?

  • sayanything-12

    That’s correct. In sociology terms, this is tribal behavior which according to Tim Ball has been going on for about 30 years now.

  • ronjon

    The theory of AGW has been around for about a century, and active research of the details for a few decades. If you want to believe that the whole AGW edifice comes crumbling down b/c of internal emails or quesitonable tree ring data (rather than published research from hundreds of scientists looking at dozens of factors) then so be it.
    But as a skeptic, I believe you’re overexaggerating and overstating the implications of these emails. If these scientists systematically lied about and fabricated the data (as some here have stated) there is no way that this could have remain hidden for over a decade. We’re not talking about one or two individuals who could have slipped through the cracks, but rather a dozen or so groups working around the world. That’s one hell-of-a coverup if they’ve pulled the wool over our eyes for so long.

  • sayanything-12

    Rob:

    Well this isn’t a “small group of scientists” in terms of the influence they wield. The IPCC was Al Gore’s “scientific consensus.” And these very same scientists were using their enormous influence in the scientific community to keep studies and reports questioning their own work out of peer-reviewed journals.

    Indeed, it is the group at the center. If you go through the emails, many of the other researchers express dismay and discomfort at some of their more outrageous acts.

  • jasmine

    i am using your blog on clarence thomas as a source in a research paper. can u please tell me your last name? please and thank you

  • captdavids

    Al Gore has always been a joke, thank God he didn’t make as a President. He should surrender his ill gotten Nobel Peace Prize, and money so someone who actually deserved it in the frst place.

  • j.l.

    Ellinas- “Obviously something changed.” Your`re right. And that “something” was changing way before we got here, and will continue to change long after we`re gone. Which is why it`s not us, and why MMGW is bull—t.

  • http://fu.com/ robert108

    We have already found out that the AGW data was fabricated.
    It’s not a “theory”, it’s a hypothesis. And you claim to be educated…

  • sayanything-342

    carrick

    What connection is there between RealClimate Blog and this recent development?

  • ronjon

    “If AGW is true, why do those same “scientists” refuse to show the data?”

    Not sure where you’re looking, but most of the data can easily be found – since it’s availabe on many a web-site.

    “No source data means all the conclusions that AGW supporters came to are in question.”

    Are you suggesting that all the support for AGW rests on supposedly deleted data (from emails at that)? And this “deleted” data comes from all quarters of such research? Seems a little far reaching.

  • sayanything-43

    “For instance, agriculture yield rates have increased significantly thanks to developments such as fertilizers, pesticides, weed controls, better equipment, economies of scale and better farming practices.”

    Higher CO2 levels helped as well. REALLY.

    Basically the limiting factor towards greening the planet was the amount of CO2 in the air. The more plant food the more the plants grow.

    Why do liberals hate trees on mountains?

  • ronjon

    Sorry, mplsbob. Here’s one such site: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/. Not sure why it shouldn’t be trusted – even in light of emails.

    And, I have read much of the email in question – definitely eye-opening & frustrating- but I don’t think it seriously puts into question AGW. Especially when it comes from such a small group of scientists. What about all the other research done over the decades, by other groups? How do we dismiss them so easily?

  • sayanything-4124

    I understand drawing from personal experience, as I have weather related personal experience as well, but there are things that many scientists both pro and con man- made global warming seem to be in agreement about, and that is historical climatic temperature cycles:

    Bronze/Iron Age cooling transition
    Roman Optimum warming, or Roman Warm Period
    Medieval warm period
    Little Ice age, which had bouts in that time frame(from about 1500-1850) of optimum temperatures, but not an obvious permanent pattern change.

    There is another on the tip of my tongue, but I can’t remember the name.

    My point being, the Earth changes climate from optimum to warmer to colder and back again. It is arrogant to assume that our behavior, which is a speck compared to solar flare activity and other natural climate issues, could change the entire Earth’s climate, and even if I agreed with that premise(which I don’t), what is the proper temperature? If one is intent on changing the temperature, then what is the proper temperature to be at? What if that is not correct and you have the moral hazard of a bigger disaster? Lastly, who says that a warmer overall Earth(which we know is a bogus claim, as the Earth has been cooling, not warming) isn’t BETTER for the human race, as places that are agriculturally rich areas, but have shorter growing seasons because of winter, would be able to grow more crops to feed a growing world population if the temperatures warmed to allow a longer growing season?

    There has never been a time in the record of human history where there was not famine, wars over commodities(water, crops, metals, etc)etc, and there have never been times w/o natural disasters from droughts to flooding, to cooling to heating that didn’t drastically impact the lives of those living through it.

  • sayanything-1254

    The problem with your suggestion, Ellinas, is that global warming has never been a search for the truth. The whole scheme has been a search for political, economic and social power.
    As the global warming myth unravels, I think we will see WHY politicians and the MSM were so eager to promote it and went to such lengths to silence the opposition.

  • http://fu.com/ robert108

    Technology makes Malthus a relic of the past, which is why you lefties want to kill the vitality of the private sector, which uses technology to produce more for everybody.
    Redistribution kills prosperity, and is the centerpiece of Marxism.

  • sayanything-12

    Something you might be interesting in.

    Real Climate Blog is owned by Environmental Media Services, which is run by Arlie Schardt, a crony of Al Gores, and funded by.. you guessed it… George Soros.

    Seriously, if somebody wrote a movie script in it, the producer would force a rewrite on this section: Nobody would find it believable.

  • HG
  • sayanything-287

    Bat and others interested in this question and the upcoming Copenhagen U.N. Conference:

    There is a big article on the Comcast home page by the Associated Press in advance of this meeting saying that “The Sky is Falling!” Obama wants whatever comes out of this conference, I guess absent Congressional approval to have immediate effect on the entire globe.

    New ship passages opened through the once frozen summer sea ice of the Arctic. In Greenland and Antarctica, ice sheets have lost trillions of tons of ice. Mountain glaciers in Europe, South America, Asia and Africa are shrinking faster than before.

    The world’s oceans have risen by about an inch and a half.

    _Droughts and wildfires have turned more severe worldwide, from the U.S. West to Australia to the Sahel desert of North Africa.

    _Species now in trouble because of changing climate include, not just the lumbering polar bear which has become a symbol of global warming, but also fragile butterflies, colorful frogs and entire stands of North American pine forests.

    _Temperatures over the past 12 years are 0.4 of a degree warmer than the dozen years leading up to 1997.

    Even the gloomiest climate models back in the 1990s didn’t forecast results quite this bad so fast.

    “The latest science is telling us we are in more trouble than we thought,” said Janos Pasztor, climate adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

    http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091122/SCI.Climate._09.Post.Kyoto/

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CLIMATE_09_POST_KYOTO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    Just go to one of these url’s and it is nothing but gloom and doom, which can of stories I expect to increase dramatically leading up to Copenhagen and I expect huge, dictatorial changes to come out of that conference, unless China and India refuse to participate.

  • ronjon

    Many places around the globe are close to large bodies of water and are dry as a bone b/c of mountains, prevailing winds, etc. So while increased temp may mean more rainfall for some areas, it will also mean drier conditions in others. That said, I have no idea what’s going on w/ Greece, but I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss AGW.

  • sayanything-43

    We’ve been warming since the little ice age ended.

  • http://fu.com/ robert108

    Despite you childish leftie namecalling(you continue to parrot rbb), Rob, I’ll give you the facts: Malthus’ central thesis was that “population increases geometrically, while food increases arithmetically, so we will all eventually starve.”

    Population no longer increases geometrically, since increasing education levels and increasing population densities both lower the birth rate.
    As already noted, food production continues to increase, so that we are not anywhere near “starvation”. In fact, people now starve for political reasons, as totalitarian regimes kill the freedom to produce by private individuals.
    To sum up, Malthus’ assumptions about how the world works were completely wrong.

  • lock’em’up

    Oh, that darn main stream media did this just to make all of you right-wing complainers look dumb for whining about their lack of coverage.

    Darn, you missed another opportunity for a poor Republicans cry session.

  • http://www.watchtvseriesnow.com/ watch

    Thanks ronjon. I will take a look at that tonight. Thanks again.

  • sayanything-12

    For other readers, RealClimate was founded by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, one of James Hansen’s employees.

  • HG

    And don’t think for a minute that this is an isolated instance. First, there was nothing isolated about it. Second, this will likely embolden whistle-blowers from around the “scientific” community. Time will tell.

  • HG

    Let’s not forget that “data” was manipulated according to these emails, with the intent of keeping trends in temperature from declining. That alone places substantial doubt on any findings these “scientists” offered. To say that MMGW still exists regardless of this fraud is to imagine the evidence exists in the first place. It is a scam, pure and simple. MMGW now proves only that a conspiracy on such a scale is possible with nothing more that wilful idiots governing the what the publice hears and students are taught. The number of media outlets, professors and institutions peddling this unscientific nonsense are shown to be for what they are — educated beyond their IQ, or just plain shysters.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    You have to be patient, Bat. Not everyone has been following this stuff as closely as we have.

  • sayanything-81

    What I mean about boringly true is not clear. Consider 2+2=4 or ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’. We set up those truths. It’s boringly true and it doesn’t tell us something about the world, merely the systems we created. We follow the rules we made so we are correct.

    The scientists make predictions and find them. Okay. Now we need to see if its boringly true, if they’ve loaded the deck, or if its telling us something new about the world.

  • mplsbob

    Like the link sparks. True indeed. What is great about the theory of science (or should be) is that the truth is mostly black and white and can be proven. Politics on the other hand is a much different breed. And when the two are mixed, which happens much more than we would like to admit, is when the s**t hits the fan.

  • sayanything-81

    THAT’S WHY FREE SOCIETIES ARE IMPORTANT, IMHO. Look, for example at what happened to science in Russia when Lamarkianism was pushed for political reasons. They destroyed countless crops, trying to stress them out to make them stronger. Jacka$$es rejected Darwin as ‘bourgeoisie’. LOL. It’s important to know who Lysenko was:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

  • sayanything-81

    If you can get into JSTOR for free, like moi, go after this article: http://www.jstor.org/pss/232413

  • sayanything-81

    The intelligent design crowd has many contemporary advocates who remind me a lot of Lysenko and Michurin insofar as they prefer dogma over evidence.

    Its important to keep track of what we have evidence for and what we don’t have evidence for. When it comes to the global warming debate, the non-scientists who advocate corrective policy to end global warming need to be careful. Often they think of the world as a closed system which is supposed to function in a specific manner which it has deviated from. The world is not a closed system. Nor is there any one way which it is supposed to function. If we are concerned with the viability of human beings on the earth, then we gain a normative foothold from which we can say ‘this is bad for human life on earth’ or ‘this is good for human life on earth’. That’s one thing. Claiming ‘this is bad for the earth’ or ‘the earth is broken’ or whatever just begs so many questions that its not even worth engaging. There is no normative foothold for those types of claims.

    When I say normative I mean some manner or rubric for specifying ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘correct’, ‘incorrect’, etc

  • bikebubba

    Sparkie, given that the emails suggest a lot of influential people at NOAA and elsewhere were the recipients of said emails, but did not raise an alarm about the willful suppression and manipulation of evidence, this says a lot more than just “there were a few bad eggs in East Anglia.” It says something people have suspected for a while; that a lot of others are willing to at least look the other way when it happens, if not collude themselves. Yes, it does impugn the testimony and credibility of the entire community advocating global warming hypotheses.

    Scoreboard: Fox, Friday. Post, Sunday. CNN, Monday. AP: Monday. Notice the “this is what we always do” spin by many people who sent and received the emails.

  • marylang

    Part of the warming is due to a natural climate cycle that Earth goes through. I remember heavier snows, milder summers, but I also remember learning that we were coming out of the last ice age into what they called “the little ice age”. We were on the down side slide into a natural warming trend. No doubt we’ve made a contribution, but is it as much as they make it out to be? And doesn’t the Earth have its own way of compensating? Millons of years, but destroyed in just a few? Doesn’t add up.

  • sayanything-81
  • sayanything-81

    True mplsbob. We also cannot rely on scientists to separate the two themselves, obviously.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Carrick would know better than I, but maybe they’re still feeling intimidated. They may also be waiting a bit for more confirmation on the emails before they jump in.

    Easy for we political commentators to speak out. Not so easy for someone in the profession, I’d imagine.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Wars for natural resources, famine and diseases still take their toll.

    Well nothing is ever perfect. There are no utopias. But speaking more generally, those things don’t happen where there is social and economic freedom.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Nobody is arguing that climate patterns haven’t changed over time. The debate is over what is causing those patterns to change.

    Is it anthropogenic “global warming” as the global warming alarmists claim or is it something else not related to human activity?

    This is an important question, because reams of political policy (much of it impacting our liberty and our pocket books) has been passed on the supposition that it is being caused by human activity.

    And, frankly, I’ll put my stock in (honest and transparent) scientific analysis than anecdotal rememberings of “elders.”

  • sayanything-453

    Nah! “We” found nothing. The jury is still out.

  • sayanything-453

    I am not defending anyone. I question everybody.
    I don’t deal with anyones hard drives, or floppy discs.
    I am not sure as to who you accuse of “hiding” stuff, as there is a plethora of information available both pro and con.

  • sayanything-81

    That incident happened, unfortunately, when I was finishing my undergraduate degree at the very same institution. I new exactly what words to bring it up with in a search engine.

  • sayanything-81

    This doesn’t indict the whole scientific community. What about the link I posted? In that case, the fraud was exposed by the guy’s research assistant.

    That’s like saying that Enron discredited every business, which they did not.

    Again, I think we should draw conclusions carefully here.

  • mplsbob

    Thanks ronjon. I will take a look at that. Not tonight though. Thanks again.

  • sayanything-81

    I wonder if we are going to find out that some of this stuff was fabricated or not.

    I was at school today, looking over a new text dealing with the IPCC findings with one of my advisors. It’s a good text, fair and so forth, aimed at explaining some of the findings and criticizing the rushed conclusions… but lots of things are up in the air now.

    If this damaging info is a ‘plant’, then it will be a success for AGW. Either way though, I still maintain that it does nothing to prove the theory right or wrong.

  • mplsbob

    I am sure that is true Ellinas. The bigger question is if we are the cause of it. The e-mails that have been shown the light of day are showing deception. If AGW is true, why do those same “scientists” refuse to show the data? Instead they threaten to delete the data if they are asked for it in the freedom of info law. Low and behold they did just that. Except in the media it came out that they did not have enough room on their hard drives for it. I am a scientist and I would never delete my source data. How could you prove your conclusion to anyone. No source data means all the conclusions that AGW supporters came to are in question.

  • sayanything-453

    And, frankly, I’ll put my stock in (honest and transparent) scientific analysis than anecdotal rememberings of “elders.”

    You put your stock where you want.
    There is nothing anecdotal about what my 102 year old great uncle says.
    These “elders” have farmed all their lives and depended on the weather. Over many years they developed valuable knowledge and passed it on.
    It is like the mariners of the past. They knew how to find their way around the seas and oceans without the assistance of the GPS.

  • mplsbob

    Where did you pull that from sparks? It is amazing that people will do anything to either make their theory proven true for fame or money. Who knows their motivation.

  • sayanything-81

    This situation does not count for or against AGW theories, as I stated. That is obvious to anyone with brains unless they want to extract a specific conclusion from this, like the jacka$$ scientists.

  • sayanything-453

    Being around lots of water does not affect rainfall as some would have you believe.
    Take a good look at the Mediterranean basin. Syria, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, coastal Spain, southern Italy, and Greece do not have an abundance of rainfall.
    They are largely arid, and in the case of the north African counties they are deserts.

  • sayanything-81

    I work on problems in the philosophy of science related to this. It is of particular interest to me and a couple of my future dissertation advisors. I am working, specifically, on social epistemology and this falls under that umbrella. We will be talking about it seriously at the university in back offices for weeks, and months, to come.

    I work on problems like DOES CONSENSUS EVEN MATTER? and IF ALL THE FACTS ARE IN AND WE CAN’T RESOLVE THE ISSUE, WHAT DOES A CONSENSUS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL DATA MATTER? and WHAT IS TRANSPARENCY? and HOW SHOULD PEER REVIEW WORK? and HOW DO WE BEST DISTRIBUTE RESEARCH EFFORTS ON UNSOLVED OR CONTENTIOUS PROBLEMS?

  • sayanything-81

    Data manipulation, especially when you are working with grant funding, is against the law. Its fraud. It strikes me that this is relevant to the current situation:
    http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050318/NEWS/503180340/1003/NEWS02

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Well, first one I noticed.

    It hasn’t gotten widespread attention, to be sure. I expect it to erupt as a pretty major scandal.

  • mplsbob

    I am sure that most believe what they are doing is right. I think some may be helping the data work out the way they want. Time will tell

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Ronjon, the IPCC was the “scientific consensus” and now we learn that the IPCC data was manipulated, hidden from scrutiny and that people questioning it were met with intimidation and inclusion.

    That doesn’t speak well for AGW theory.

  • mplsbob

    ronjon! I gotta use FORTRAN to intrpret the data? dude.

  • mplsbob

    Agreed S.A. If they didn’t and it is actually true that AGW exists then so be it. I just think this makes it suspect. I always had a gut feel but this just reinforces it.
    Manipulating data just discredits the whole science community.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Especially when it comes from such a small group of scientists. What about all the other research done over the decades, by other groups? How do we dismiss them so easily?

    Well this isn’t a “small group of scientists” in terms of the influence they wield. The IPCC was Al Gore’s “scientific consensus.” And these very same scientists were using their enormous influence in the scientific community to keep studies and reports questioning their own work out of peer-reviewed journals.

    Meaning that the single most influential scientific body backing AGW has not only been exposed as fraudulently manipulating their reports to achieve specific ends, but they effectively silenced their critics as well.

    Now, I’m not saying AGW is entirely out the window. I do think we’re back at square one though, and any blather about “scientific consensus” should be mocked and ridiculed at this point.

    And we certainly shouldn’t be basing public policy on any o fthis work at this point.

  • mplsbob

    Interesting work sparks.
    If all the facts are in and we can’t resolve the issue? That must be an issue that can’t be proven by overwhelming fact and probably more about beliefs, morals, and preconceived notions.

  • sayanything-453

    Drawing from my personal experience, I can say this: The little Greek village I was born and raised
    had a small river running through it. It powered a flour mill (turning a paddle wheel). The winters were brutally cold, yes Northern Greece is cold, with snow storms etc. Rainfall was ample during the autumn months, and the snow did not melt until late march. All the village elders agree that it is much hotter and drier now, the small river is gone, not much snow, an earlier spring thaw, hot arid summers, and diminished autumn rainfall.
    Obviously something changed.
    I will believe my own eyes and my elders, before I’ll believe any of the kooks who are global warming alarmists and those who are not.

  • sayanything-81

    I don’t think the end was necessarily political, as Rob implies in his post. Again, we need to be careful about what conclusions we draw from this. What if they were just douches who wanted to be correct? Perhaps it wasn’t the taxes and parenting that motivated them, as Rob concludes.

  • sayanything-81

    The problem with the global warming debate is that it is very hard to prove the efficacy of changes in policy, especially when you are dealing with something like global warming which is a hugely complex problem occurring in a hugely complex scale and hugely complex system. How do we know if the warming is accidental or human caused? Correlation is not causation. What I mean is, if the stork populations in Europe fluctuate with the birth rates, who cares? Moreover, if we change our policy and we see a lessening of global warming, or some positive effect we predicted, how do we know it’s our efforts that made the difference?

    These problems plague so-called ecological (or ‘in the wild’) investigation where you cannot replicate something repeatedly in the lab. It doesn’t necessarily mean we aren’t right about it, its just a h3ll of a lot harder to establish and even when we think we have established it, there is a lot of room for skepticism (whether benign or malignant skepticism).

    People don’t like folks like me who do research like this because the last thing the scientists want you doing is talking about their situation and their potential political motivations, but obviously we need to talk about those things. It’s odd, when doing this research one has to believe in science while not believing in science.

    I prefer the benign skepticism myself.

    The other interesting issues related to this is WHAT COUNTS AS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR SOMETHING? Sometimes if you set up the domain and make a prediction, you may not know if the positive result is an artifact of your approach, and boringly true, or if it actually tells you something new about the world. This is one of the problems with verificationalism, which is basically the dogma of scientists. This should be a fairly good short read: http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/07/30/falsificationism-and-verificationism/

  • sayanything-81

    THe main problem here is the monopoly on data and influence this group had. Without that, they never could have lied and manipulated. It speaks ill of the effects of the nobel prize. (There isn’t even one for biology or social science, i beleive.) It’s a poor distribution of research effort. Before we have resolved the issue, research effort should be distributed equally among contending views, provided those views have comparable empirical support. What counts as empirical support becomes a hard problem, especially in cases like this.

  • sayanything-81

    if you knowingly manipulate data which is used for grant apps, that’s fraud. period. fines and jail. the academic community will do best by ostracizing these pricks ASAP.

  • sayanything-453

    T. R. Malthus is still relevant.
    Wars for natural resources, famine and diseases still take their toll.
    You are just insulated from it all like a queen ant, waiting for the workers to procure/produce food, and the soldiers to defend and expand the colony in search of more resources.

  • mplsbob

    Where ronjon?
    And can you trust the data provided on these so called easily found web sites?
    Do you know what your are talking about?
    They based their science on tree ring data. And in one area of the globe for that data to infer that what happens there happens everywhere.

    I am looking at their e-mails. You should too. Very interesting to see the insides of an operation that is as lucrative as their community. Millions of dollars spent. Of course you will prove AGW. We demand an investigation.

  • sayanything-81

    Also, I wonder why Rob describes this as the first media attention to this issue when it obviously is not. Right in Rob’s linked article is another from the day before:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html

  • mplsbob

    This is to ronjon. Your easily found websites that talk about the data. I know it is a little far reaching. But hey, truth is stranger than fiction.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
    Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

  • sayanything-81

    Avoiding debate and exchange by manipulating peer-review is bad. Apparently that journal is best used for toilet paper.

    Nonetheless, this does not count for or against the questions about global warming. Suppressing the opposition does not show you are wrong, it just shows that you don’t want to engage in debate. I am not a global warming nut, but its important not to draw the incorrect conclusions from this. I have stated my position on global warming before and Carrick agreed with it 100%. We might not be on the same page, but he has endorsed my observations in the past.

  • sayanything-453

    I am not a disciple of global warming, nor am I a skeptic. I wonder why both sides are trying to destroy each other instead of working together to find what is true and what is not.
    The truth is out there.

  • spartacus

    Al’s hair looks a little thinner than usual in that headline pic. Was that pic taken after the C.R.U. was hacked?

  • sayanything-81

    Glenn Beck often reminds me of these two linked above even though he’s not a scientist. He rejects criticism. That’s why he’s no different. He stigmatizes with name-calling instead of engaging the debates. No different than calling Mendelevian and Darwinian theories ‘bourgeoisie garbage’, just different.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Malthus was accurate (to some degree) in his time, but as Big180 notes he didn’t take into account efficiencies introduced by technology.

    For instance, agriculture yield rates have increased significantly thanks to developments such as fertilizers, pesticides, weed controls, better equipment, economies of scale and better farming practices.

    Malthus’ main problem is that he was entirely too one dimensional in his thinking.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development