Print Story Attn: Climate Change Fetishist Infidels!
Diary
By Breaker (Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:02:50 AM EST) (all tags)
It's either one hell of a hoax or some scientists are going to be seeking new sinecures pretty soon.


Discuss.
< Framed! | Ladies >
Attn: Climate Change Fetishist Infidels! | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Oh great by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #1 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:40:38 AM EST
Hoax or not, relevant or not, this is going to be waved in the face of every serious discussion of climate change, for the next twenty years.

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
More than likely. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #2 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:52:45 AM EST
I don't know how it will be proved or disproved though.

One thing I can't get my head around is whose hand is out for the money.

Always, follow the money.


[ Parent ]
It's a pretty serious allegation by nebbish (4.00 / 2) #3 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:59:37 AM EST
So should become part of the wider debate soon, upon which we can get some more information. I don't really know what to make of it at present.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Yeah by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #8 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:25:31 AM EST
Don't think anyone in the MSM has picked it up yet though.

Things could get interesting.


[ Parent ]
MSM is bought and paid for. by dmg (4.00 / 1) #16 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 04:22:25 PM EST
Expect this to be spun in one direction only. 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
NY Times has it up by lm (2.00 / 0) #19 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:05:13 PM EST
Hacked E-Mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics

The smoking gun looks more like a tempest in a tea pot to me.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
They need fuel? by Merekat (4.00 / 2) #24 Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:49:12 AM EST
Looks to me like they can run on close to nothing.


[ Parent ]
For those who can't be bothered to click through by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 4) #4 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:08:22 AM EST
Amongst the hacked data is a 1999 email mentioning "adding the real temps to each series for the last 20 years" .

This was in the context of a temperature graph of proxy data (e.g from ice cores or tree rings) which didn't include the last 20 years, so they added instrumental data to the end of the series.

:owever, the climate change deniers have decided it really means adding to the temperature numbers themselves as part of a conspiracy to fake the figures, which is what they think is "explosive"
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

Fair enough by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #5 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:15:29 AM EST

I guessed as much.

But what about the 'hiding the decline' line? Some of the links ellipsize out before explaining Prof. Jones response (which is an automatic red flag, although they seem to be quoting a teaser for an article which isn't out yet), but it's still interesting.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
UPDATE by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #7 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:24:29 AM EST

The responses quoted come from Investigate Magazine's TGIF supplement [PDF]. The section in question reads ...

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing hiding “the decline”, and Jones explained he was not trying to mislead.

“No, that’s completely wrong. In the sense that they’re talking about two different things here. They’re talking about the instrumental data which is unaltered – but they’re talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it’s just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don’t always have the last few years. So one way is to add on the instrumental data for the last few years.”

Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”.

“That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the clarification by gazbo (4.00 / 1) #6 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:23:19 AM EST
I was trying to figure out what they meant by that (rather than just taking a ridiculous guess to suit their fantasies, which is what the comments on the article seem to do.

What did the "decline" refer to though? If it were just a lack of data then that's strange terminology?


I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
Well done by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #9 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:27:44 AM EST
Must. Stop. Skim. Reading

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Sinecure by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #10 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:45:50 AM EST
That's an interesting word to use. Care to explain why you used it. It looks as if they're people with jobs to me. Probably temporary jobs that run from grant to grant.

Largely by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #11 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:04:33 AM EST
Because if they are discredited as scientists, no real research agency will want them. 

So the only work available would be figurehead postings where doing real science isn't required.


[ Parent ]
You implied they already have sinecures by darkbrown (2.00 / 0) #12 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 11:02:40 AM EST
When you said "some scientists are going to be seeking new sinecures pretty soon."

[ Parent ]
No. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #25 Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:26:28 PM EST
You thought I implied that.


[ Parent ]
I don't believe you. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #13 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 12:03:02 PM EST
I thought it was just more of your "everyone else is an idiot" polemic.

Matched with some of the old "if you want to work in the public (or semi-public) sector, then you must be a corrupt grafter" polemic.

And it pissed me off.

[ Parent ]
Then don't! by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #26 Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:29:38 PM EST
You've asked what I meant, I've explained what I meant. 

If that doesn't fit in with your expectation then I'm sorry.


[ Parent ]
Research agencies know where the money is. by NoMoreNicksLeft (2.00 / 0) #18 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 06:35:35 PM EST
And if fake scientists bring it in, they'll hire those over real scientists any day.

--
Do not look directly into laser with remaining good eye.
[ Parent ]
take for what it's worth by lolwhat (4.00 / 1) #14 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 02:22:28 PM EST
http://market-ticker.org/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html

Apparently - if this is to be believed - some attempts have been made to prevent certain info from getting released in response to FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) requests. This could include intentional destruction of correspondence. Why would that need to be done - if it were indeed done, that is?

"OMG conspiracy theorist!" Whatever.
--
If cigarette packs are required to have pictures of diseased lungs, college brochures should be required to have photos of grads working at Starbucks.

Denninger is spot on on most things by dmg (2.00 / 0) #17 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 06:26:49 PM EST
The amusing thing about the modern conspiracy is that it is all played out in full view - no attempt is made to disguise what is happening. It is very reminiscent of the movie "They Live".





--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
The facts don't matter. by dmg (2.00 / 0) #15 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 04:16:05 PM EST
The Earth is getting warmer and its OUR FAULT and we had better start BEHAVING HOW THE GOVERNMENT TELLS US TO or we are ALL GOING TO DIE...
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
As soon as I found out about the Al gore by Dewey Wang (4.00 / 1) #20 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:08:09 PM EST
Enron connection with this co2 market it's pretty clear it's another 'scarcity' scam.

It's just more taxes to make us more & more poor... Are we serfs already?

Will people stand around while they charge us for a trace gas?

0.8% of the atmosphere is CO2.  Carbon is VITAL TO LIFE.

The whole thing is a sham.

You'll never see the CO2 people taking action for real environmental disasters.  In Tennessee there was a coal slurry spill, WORSE then the Valdez disaster.

I'm sure you've never heard of it, because nobody is reporting it.

Hoax or no by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #21 Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 11:22:24 PM EST
...the arctic ice extent (and the coming Northwest passage) is a bit more compelling...
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
My questions are: by lolwhat (2.00 / 0) #22 Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:20:14 AM EST
How much of that (and other supposed climate changes) is being caused by us, the human race, and how much of it is caused by natural forces? Would even a complete cessation of CO2-producing human activities stop it? Is CO2 even the major greenhouse gas? Are cap-and-trade and other political "solutions" worth experimenting with - keeping in mind that it directly benefits the usual winners (Goldman Sachs), while hurting those of us who actually contribute to the economy, all on the mere chance that a global climate catastrophe would be inevitable otherwise? Why should we undertake these changes, when rather substantial doubt exists as to the verity and verifiability of large amounts of data on which many influential climate studies were based? Why should we listen to people like Al Gore, when he says that the Earth's core has a temperature of a few million degrees? Why should we listen to people like Dr. Tim Mitchell, whose name comes up in the exposé, and who may have allowed his religion (evangelical Christianity) to influence his very strong views on climate change?
--
If cigarette packs are required to have pictures of diseased lungs, college brochures should be required to have photos of grads working at Starbucks.
[ Parent ]
Re: Tim Mitchell by lolwhat (2.00 / 0) #23 Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:23:21 AM EST
I should have said, "Why should we listen to people like Dr. Tim Mitchell, whose name comes up in the exposé, and who may have allowed his religious (evangelical Christian) views to influence his climate change analyses?"
--
If cigarette packs are required to have pictures of diseased lungs, college brochures should be required to have photos of grads working at Starbucks.
[ Parent ]
SuperFreakonomics by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #28 Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:40:22 PM EST
Has some interesting takes on global warming.  Some scientists reckon that faking a few volcanos is enough to halt a global warming trend.

IIRC they think it'd cost ~100million USD.


[ Parent ]
Do you mean by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #27 Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:38:33 PM EST
No by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #29 Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:21:44 PM EST
I mean the Northwest Passage.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Compelling in what way? by dmg (2.00 / 0) #30 Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:47:01 PM EST
Ice has been melting and forming in cycles for a long long time. By your argument, the fact that the Antarctic ice is expanding means there must be global cooling. We can't have it both ways... 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
The antarctic ice sheet is /losing/ mass by lm (4.00 / 1) #31 Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:13:23 PM EST
From the Beeb:

The Grace measurements suggest there was no net ice loss between 2002 and 2006. . . . But since then, East Antarctica has been losing 57 billion tonnes (Gt) per year. . . . The loss still looks small by contrast with West Antarctica, which is losing 132Gt per year.

But to be honest, I think this story about antarctic ice is far more interesting. But I'm perverse like that.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Attn: Climate Change Fetishist Infidels! | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback