November 29, 2009

ClimateGate gets real legs - London Times reports on CRU's thrown away raw data
— Purple Avenger

Hey, this bag is empty, where did that kitteh run off to?

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years...

Their data ditching is actually old, high profile coverage of it and its implications, not so old.

I've stated elsewhere, that we (the world) if its serious about pissing a few trillion bucks down a rathole over this AGW thing, needs to take out an insurance policy against doing that foolishly. I'm willing to spend a couple of billion dollars recollecting and reconstructing this "lost data" from scratch to make sure I'm not cratering the world economy for no reason.

Another billion or two in the context of possibly pissing away trillions is pretty cheap term insurance. Copenhagen should have only one outcome if the public is to get a warm fuzzy there is real science going on here -- resolve to darken the skies with planes full of data collection teams and resolve to get comprehensive raw data analyzed and regenerated within the next 6 months.

Here's your chance Barak -- let the public know you're serious about verifiable science.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:25 AM | Comments (168)
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Define "much."

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 29, 2009 06:28 AM (zL+qc)

2 The raw data is still out there. It is in ship's logs, weather station reports, etc. It will be a bitch to gather and organize, but so what? Better that than letting these criminals get away with the biggest con ever.

Posted by: eman at November 29, 2009 06:29 AM (eSNGZ)

3 Define "much."

The inconvenient parts mostly ;->

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2009 06:31 AM (C8YWz)

4 Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s
-----------------

Oh, so he's totally trustworthy and his work is valid.

Posted by: arhooley at November 29, 2009 06:32 AM (GKXA7)

5 Re posted from the minaret thread

This line from the article is killer.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 29, 2009 06:32 AM (tf9Ne)

6
But they kept the data from those 3 trees, right?

Because that shit is important.

Posted by: Scopes, the talking monkey at November 29, 2009 06:32 AM (hGfZu)

7 In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data

Data. now fortified with vitamins, minerals, and lies.

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 29, 2009 06:34 AM (zL+qc)

8

So I just finished watching the local Fox/ABC morning talk shows. Wallace on Fox didn't mention it. He was more concerned about a couple crashing the White House Dinner. ABC did bring it up, for a while, and although I was expecting George Will to jump on it, he just seemed lame and un-informed.

Jesus H....

Posted by: HH at November 29, 2009 06:35 AM (+jvXp)

9 Mann-made global warming, indeed.

Posted by: random at November 29, 2009 06:35 AM (eLppP)

10 I would like to use my custom value-added data to calculate the value of my 401(k). I am sure the brokerage house won't mind.

Posted by: NJConservative at November 29, 2009 06:35 AM (/Ywwg)

11 We had all the data in a big pile on a desk and then a gust of hot wind blew it out the window where it landed in a puddle of melted glacier and then was gulped down by starving Polar Bears. For real.

Posted by: eman at November 29, 2009 06:36 AM (eSNGZ)

12
The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

hahahaha!

This is a joke, right? They shoulda said they got cold one night and decided to burn the paper in the fireplace.


Posted by: Scopes, the talking monkey at November 29, 2009 06:37 AM (hGfZu)

13 NASA has been systematically throwing out historical data from its global summaries in much the same way. It has recalculated these summaries 16 times, always to the effect of making the past colder and the present warmer. Typically, in such an adjustment, NASA will suddenly find a series of thermometer readings from central Africa or Kansas in the 1940s suspect and then drop the same from the data set. No meaningful reason given.

On a related note, the explanation for the NIWA (New Zealand's Climategate)  alterations make no sense at all. They appear to say it is OK to alter present day thermometer readings to reflect the relocation of weather stations well over a hundred years ago. It goes without saying that the movement of a weather station a few hundred yards would best be noted in a footnote and the raw data suffice. Only a fool uses an estimate when raw data is available.

Posted by: pat at November 29, 2009 06:37 AM (Jr9Wl)

14
CRU you keep using this word "data". I do not think it means what you think it means

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 29, 2009 06:39 AM (tf9Ne)

15 8, Yep. Those assholes need an Inside-the-Beltway angle or it just didn't happen.

Posted by: eman at November 29, 2009 06:39 AM (eSNGZ)

16 The oceans are rising. No, wait -- that's George Monbiot's tears.

Posted by: arhooley at November 29, 2009 06:41 AM (GKXA7)

17
Any moron-estimates for how much space the data took up?

More than 1000 cu ft? (a 10x10x10 room?)


Posted by: Scopes, the talking monkey at November 29, 2009 06:42 AM (hGfZu)

18 You can find raw data here : http://tinyurl.com/ycockov

Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 29, 2009 06:42 AM (muUqs)

19

Oh, and on the same ABC program, Paul Krugman really doesn't seem to care how much debt we go into. We only have to pay the interest. And as long as it seems we are creating jobs, so much the better.

And he actually held is own against Will. Which goes to show how lame Will was in that segment.

Damn that pisses me off!!!

Posted by: HH at November 29, 2009 06:43 AM (+jvXp)

20
Who is stupid enough to believe they really are that pressed for space at UEA?




Posted by: Scopes, the talking monkey at November 29, 2009 06:44 AM (hGfZu)

21

The truth is just too inconvenient and there is little profit in it.

Posted by: lan sing at November 29, 2009 06:45 AM (cEOZd)

22 HA!!

How can these tools at the CRU claim to be objective scientists when they didn't bother to keep their original data? What, nobody could back 'em up on disks or put the boxes of hard copy in the back storage room? Yeah, right, whatever. This is further proof that those global warmers don't have a scientific leg to stand on. Either they destroyed the data to prevent peer review fact checking/duplication, or they are lying through their teeth to avoid having to surrender the data and get called on their politically correct BS. Either way, I call 'em all frauds and liars. They are welcome to prove me wrong any time...by coming up with the original data.

Posted by: exdem13 at November 29, 2009 06:45 AM (lYKj1)

23 and what is funny is how many on the left are starting to claim that all of this is nothing but a plan to distract from Copenhagen Treaty Bullshit, including a certain Climate Expert and failed jazz musician
http://tinyurl.com/ykl23tg

copy & paste to your browser.


Posted by: eddiebear at November 29, 2009 06:45 AM (DZb+g)

24 Jones and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans.
--------------
Hmm, when you pronounce "unequivocally" carefully, it has six syllables. SIX. Can we argue with this?

Posted by: arhooley at November 29, 2009 06:47 AM (GKXA7)

25 Paul Krugman really doesn't seem to care how much debt we go into. We only have to pay the interest.

Sounds like a creative financing sub-prime loan.  Those worked out real good, eh?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2009 06:49 AM (C8YWz)

26

I'm willing to spend a couple of billion dollars recollecting and reconstructing this "lost data" from scratch to make sure I'm not cratering the world economy for no reason.

Anyone truly on the side of real Science would agree. My only caveat is that all data, code and methodologies be made 100% public. If this had be the case from the start, there would be little to debate right now.

I would add that those who conspired to hide or delete data must be censured and have no part in the future of climate science, other than perhaps a lesson taught to students on how to discredit oneself and one's profession.

Posted by: krakatoa at November 29, 2009 06:49 AM (hQbvm)

27 First of all, once published, scientists (ie ACTUAL ones) are supposed to make all their data publically available.   I believe they are legally obligated to do so if the data was generated using Federal grant money.

>>Here's your chance Barak -- let the public know you're serious about verifiable science.

Who says its about science?


Posted by: looking closely at November 29, 2009 06:50 AM (KNy97)

28 "Please note: none of what I wrote above changes my opinion that “CRU-gate” is an absolutely phony scandal, deliberately trumped up and distorted to sabotage the Copenhagen climate summit meeting." Charles Johnson Fuck you all wait until I make a couple Moby comments using racial slurs like I did at HotAir. That will show you!

Posted by: Kilgore Trout at November 29, 2009 06:51 AM (whG5F)

29 "Here's your chance Barak"

Barak? as in an Anglicization of Baruch? ooh, you filthy anti-Semenite! Leave Baruch alone!

Posted by: Sporadic Small Arms Fire at November 29, 2009 06:51 AM (MBxH4)

30
Did anyone happen to see the look on Krugman's face when this was brought up by Steph this morning? Dude looked like he took a bite out of his coffee cup and was getting ready to choke.

I was shocked that Steph even mentioned it too.

Posted by: Blazer at November 29, 2009 06:52 AM (+FzLa)

31 So the story is, these guys claimed to have proof of a world ending calamity but they didn't think keeping that was important?

You know, if you act like a lying douche tool, you shouldn't be surprised when people treat you like a lying douche tool.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 29, 2009 06:52 AM (FCWQb)

32 My only caveat is that all data, code and methodologies be made 100% public.

Just got an flash email from the Vampires Union local 314.  They definitively stated that "sunshine" is a really bad thing.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2009 06:53 AM (C8YWz)

33 Here's a question for those that say this is a nontroversy.

Would you fly on a plane whose maintenance and safety records had value added data?

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 29, 2009 06:54 AM (tf9Ne)

34

Slightly OT, please forgive me but this is serious,,

 

Can anyone recommend a good ointment?,, My ears are raw from scrapeing the sides of doors when I walk through.

 

OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012'

(the terrorist-Uighur-ACORN-media choice)

-It's never too early to campaign-

Posted by: Barry Soetoro (D-King OF The World!!) at November 29, 2009 06:55 AM (YwfvI)

35 "Here's your chance Barak -- let the public know you're serious about verifiable science."

Jesus... The word 'serious' and 'Barak' in the same sentence.
The only thing Barak is 'serious' about is himself, and cratering the American economy and he's doing quite well at both.

Posted by: Gmac at November 29, 2009 06:56 AM (5iy+N)

36 Yeah, Barry is all about "verifiable science".  Just ask about all those "jobs saved or created".

Posted by: GarandFan at November 29, 2009 06:56 AM (ZQBnQ)

37 Climate change "deniers"=Creationists!!!1!!!! Charles Johnson told me so!!!!! "This is a perfect example of a point I’ve made several times: the convergence of tactics and talking points between climate denial groups and creationists. They both use cherry-picked data, they both employ pseudo-scientific language to make outrageous claims that sound convincing to gullible people, they both compile lists of skeptical “scientists” that turn out to be packed with ringers, frauds, and people who never signed in the first place, and they both use quote mining. And they are very often the same people."

Posted by: Kilgore Trout at November 29, 2009 06:56 AM (whG5F)

38 What did CRU do with Ace?

Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 29, 2009 06:56 AM (muUqs)

39 Just ask about all those "jobs saved or created".

I think there was a lot of "value add" in that jobs saved data.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2009 06:57 AM (C8YWz)

40

Blazer, I saw that moment too. But Will dropped the ball. Mr.stastic,(and he always has one or more), just let it drop. He could have NAILED Krugman, and he didn't..

He had his chance and didn't take it. Never mentioned peer review, bad data, anything.

Again, just lame.

Posted by: HH at November 29, 2009 06:59 AM (+jvXp)

41 I really wish people would stop using "Climategate" and instead use "Warmaquiddick" or if you must "Climatequiddick" even if that's more awkward.

But it is getting more momentum and coverage - outside the US.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 29, 2009 06:59 AM (PQY7w)

42

Wasn't there an email that said something like "I'd rather delete the raw data than realease it"?

Posted by: lan sing at November 29, 2009 07:00 AM (cEOZd)

43 37

"This is a perfect example of a point I’ve made several times: the convergence of tactics and talking points between climate change denial groups and Dems writing bills creationists. They both use cherry-picked data, they both employ pseudo-scientific language to make outrageous claims that sound convincing to gullible people, they both compile lists of skeptical “scientists” that turn out to be packed with ringers, frauds, and people who never signed in the first place, and they both use quote mining.

FIFY

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 29, 2009 07:02 AM (tf9Ne)

44

#18

Damn, Dr Spank,  I was expects some pron, not the REAL data.

You know your posting at AoSHQ,  right?  We expect a little more over here than facts!

Posted by: Kemp at November 29, 2009 07:02 AM (2+9Yx)

45 Ha ha, the CRU is acting like ACORN now!

Posted by: logprof at November 29, 2009 07:02 AM (I3Udb)

46 Buzzsaw, would you be operated on by a surgeon whose certifications, grades, and resume had value added data?

Posted by: arhooley at November 29, 2009 07:06 AM (GKXA7)

47
Buzzsaw, would you be operated on by a surgeon whose certifications, grades, and resume had value added data?

Posted by: arhooley at November 29, 2009 12:06 PM (GKXA7)





If so, you're gonna love government run health care.

Posted by: Blazer at November 29, 2009 07:08 AM (+FzLa)

48 If this data actually shows the earth is actuallly cooling then would they be telling us to burn more fossil fuels?  No.  They would claim that fossil fuels were causing the cooling.  Seems the scientists put their bets on the wrong horse. 

Posted by: lan sing at November 29, 2009 07:10 AM (cEOZd)

49 I forget, is it Nittany Lions, or Nittany Lie-in's? Calling Dr. Spanier Dr. Easterling Dr. Spanier!

Posted by: dr kill at November 29, 2009 07:11 AM (KXVFz)

50

So what's the difference between CRU and Oh, say Enron?

Anyone?

 

Posted by: HH at November 29, 2009 07:11 AM (+jvXp)

51 He scienced me with blindness.

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 29, 2009 07:12 AM (zL+qc)

52 You ever wonder what would happen if a politician came along and without ever mentioning global warming ran on a campaign of raising taxes on all energy you used, capping the amount of energy you could use, forcing people to outfit their house to use less energy, pledged to the UN to mandate the United States would use 50% less energy in 10 years, and went around saying he would bankrupt US industries such as coal and oil?

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 29, 2009 07:12 AM (whG5F)

53 George Monbiot has been silent since November 23. It'll be interesting when he comes forth again.

Posted by: arhooley at November 29, 2009 07:12 AM (GKXA7)

54 A lot of reporters have a lot invested in the current global warming science. They're not going to give up on it easily. Ace made the point before that people, in general, don't like to admit when they're wrong (see Obama), but they will change their mind easier if they feel like they have been deceived. It will be interesting to see if and when the media turns on these "scientists".

Posted by: Dr. Spank at November 29, 2009 07:13 AM (muUqs)

55 44 #18 Damn, Dr Spank, I was expects some pron, not the REAL data. You know your posting at AoSHQ, right? We expect a little more over here than facts! Posted by: Kemp at November 29, 2009 12:02 PM (2+9Yx) Or at least a good rickroll. I haven't had one of those for a couple of days.

Posted by: The Dread Pirate Neck Beard at November 29, 2009 07:13 AM (z85uT)

56 Did they have ACORN help them too........

Posted by: FU52 at November 29, 2009 07:13 AM (+PFSk)

57 Does the same company that makes Valu Rite Vodka also make Valu Added Data?

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 29, 2009 07:13 AM (tf9Ne)

58

This is how serious science is done nowadays, post-modern science, where there is no reality.

Just what politicians want. Go figure that those fuckers would end up benefiting from post-modernism. Go fuckin figure that the years of brainwashing kids results in this shit.

I'd like to string these assholes up on the next windmill going up.

And no surprise that this bit of post-modern liberal stupidity had the Kennedy's not buying in by refusing windmill construction, yet promoting it.

That's how it has always gone. Lysenkoism is alive and well. Figures.


Posted by: Rev. Dr. E. Buzz Miller at November 29, 2009 07:13 AM (CHf6r)

59 If this data actually shows the earth is actuallly cooling then would they be telling us to burn more fossil fuels?  No.  They would claim that fossil fuels were causing the cooling.

See also, "The Coming Ice Age", vintage mid-to-late 1970s.

First rule of eco-scares: the problem is always that we're rich and free. The solution is always to enslave and impoverish us.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 29, 2009 07:15 AM (n2wxa)

60 Free Money!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkzRZxKw6GY&feature=related

Posted by: Mathew Lesko at November 29, 2009 07:16 AM (whG5F)

61 "Science will not intrude on public policy" -- Vice President Al Gore

Posted by: Duncan Donetz at November 29, 2009 07:16 AM (XeAEF)

62 Yahooooooooooooooo!!!!!! http://tiny.cc/gxpny I hate trying to link on here.

Posted by: Mathew Lesko at November 29, 2009 07:17 AM (whG5F)

63 "....resolve to darken the skies with planes full of data collection teams and resolve to get comprehensive raw data analyzed and regenerated within the next 6 months."

Why? Are you telling me you would believe any conclusion they drew from any data? If so, would you care to buy a bridge?

Seriously. If you lot are just looking for a fig leaf that will let you go along to get along, have at it. Kindly leave free men and women the hell out of it, though.

Posted by: Ken at November 29, 2009 07:24 AM (rQI8i)

64 #37 - Is that an actual quote from CJ? Has the guy been asleep for two weeks? He's shown definitive proof that it's the climate "scientists" who've been cherry-picking data, employing pseudo-scientific language (and methods) and making outrageous claims, and he's blaming creationists?

Hide the decline, Charles.

Hide it on your singularity-approaching pointless irrelevant blog.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2009 07:28 AM (Ta/V3)

65 As somebody who is a budding participant in the peer-reviewed process and has to jump through hoops to get something published in a peer-reviewed journal (as well as accepted at various conferences), the actions of these researchers aggravates me to no end.  They've not only violated the trust of the public, they have violated the ethics of their profession.  Their manipulations of the data (e.g., intentionally using timeframes for analysis that support their hypotheses and ignoring those that don't), lack of rigor with their methodology, and biased analysis taints those of us trying to do things the right way and advance knowledge in a fashion beneficial to the public (and, in my situation, the government and business community).

Of course, this is just the impact of the behavior of these climate researchers on the research community.  The larger impact of their unethical behavior on trying to change and influence the economic policies of this country and the rest of the world through the implementation of garbage like cap-and-trade legislation is even more criminal.  I expect an empty suit like Al Gore to be a moron about most of these issues, but those that have been trained on the ethical and appropriate manner to go about conducting research should know better.  Perhaps if these researchers left their Left-wing bias and agenda at the door they wouldn't find themselves compromising their professional ethics. Then again, the flawed peer-reviewed process contributes to this type of behavior, too.

Posted by: Slappy at November 29, 2009 07:31 AM (ljvjO)

66

I think next April I will toss all of my receipts and 1099's and file my tax return with "value-added" numbers.

Okay, value-subtracted then.

Bonus: An Editorial Photoshop to pass around concerning AGW "Peer Review"

 

Posted by: Walsingham at November 29, 2009 07:35 AM (gFYz6)

67

I am surrounded by moonbats who get their news from the "news"paper.  Sssssh - they don't suspect a thing!  I love to watch their childish, innocent faces as they read every day about how compassionate they are, and how important their trivial sacrifices are to saving the world.

Now, what is the best way to capture and store their tears when the time comes that their gods in the media tell them the horrible truth?  I want to be able to enjoy a sip now and then.

Posted by: sherlock at November 29, 2009 07:38 AM (ktKOD)

68

Slappy, I am sorry to inform you that I have not trusted scientists, their research, or their findings for a very long time.  If a lie will make them money, they do. 

 

 

Posted by: lan sing at November 29, 2009 07:40 AM (cEOZd)

69

This "lost data" is a big fat effing lie - my opinion by the way.  The data is there in the actual program that added all the so called corrections, unless they "lost" the programming also, and all that is left is the printout. 

The raw data was alledgedly lost in the eighties and all they claim to have is the "corrected, massaged, or altered" numbers.  That means they had entered it into computers over twenty years ago.  This data is still there and can be extracted, or they should be able to - if they were willing.  All their temperature data could have been stored on a few tape reels, and they needed more space? Bullshit.

Lost? No. Thrown away accidentally on purpose? YES.        

Posted by: Pelayo at November 29, 2009 07:44 AM (wwQxi)

70

Why? Are you telling me you would believe any conclusion they drew from any data?

If I personally looked at the methods and results and found them credible, I would believe them. If I saw the same flaky shit as today, I wouldn't.  I have enough general scientific training to make that determination for myself.

I want to hear real data speak, not politicians or scientists with vested financial interest in a particular outcome.  Hard data is apolitical.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2009 07:44 AM (C8YWz)

71 65: You said it all, man. Nice to see someone in the scientific community come out and plainly state why cheating in the name of good intentions is ALWAYS a bad idea.

Posted by: exdem13 at November 29, 2009 07:44 AM (lYKj1)

72

This data is still there and can be extracted, or they should be able to - if they were willing. 

Not really, even if you have the programs that did it.  Example - the average of two numbers can't be used to regenerate the original two numbers if you don't have both of them anymore (with one original and the average, you could calculate the missing one, but not with two missing). 

A lot of their correctionstransformations would introduce a similar irreversible loss of original information.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2009 07:53 AM (C8YWz)

73 Ummm.. well, you see, it's like this.. My data was all ready to bring to school, and then my dog jumped up on the table and ate it!


Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at November 29, 2009 07:53 AM (tDm8K)

74 Ehh, I've been blogging this locally for a week and my known Republican commenters are being very quiet.   I'm afraid it's too late - the warmists have been sending out speakers like Sen John Warner and a retired admiral to tell veterans that this warming thing is a threat to national security.   Plus the same local radio stations that carry Rush have been filled with Ad Council tripe about shrinking glaciers and shit for years now.

Most people are not very sciencey and don't want to look stupid.  

Posted by: cassandra at November 29, 2009 07:54 AM (gH4PS)

75 68 Slappy, I am sorry to inform you that I have not trusted scientists,

and I never will.

I will always blame them

For the death of my son.

Posted by: James T sing at November 29, 2009 12:40 PM (cEOZd)

Posted by: AmishDude at November 29, 2009 07:59 AM (ItSLQ)

76 Oh yeah, and if we collect new data, we may want to put the weather collection instruments away from air conditioning units!

Posted by: logprof at November 29, 2009 08:02 AM (I3Udb)

77

Goddamn it!  This is a NONTROVERSY!  The unholy alliance between CHISTIANISTS, CREATIONISTS, and DENIALISTS is the only story here.

Purple Avenger and all you mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging commenters on this STORMFRONT sponsored blog are hereby banned from the internet.

Oh yeah, don't forget to check out the great deals at Amazon.

Buy a calender, too.

Posted by: 2 Buck Chuck at November 29, 2009 08:06 AM (JK1hx)

78 I wonder what the reaction is from people who think the media is a right wing establishment. Is the coverup government forced? Or still just big corporations running the world?

None of the people I know that are "media is too right wing" tools have an answer for me. I suppose I could go over to fark or DU, but I just took a shower.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at November 29, 2009 08:06 AM (LJaVO)

79 Ken:  Why? Are you telling me you would believe any conclusion they drew from any data?...

Seriously. If you lot are just looking for a fig leaf that will let you go along to get along, have at it. Kindly leave free men and women the hell out of it, though.

As PA pointed out, raw data is apolitical.

If we are not willing to assess the evidence from a proper skeptical scientific perspective, then we accomplish nothing in this whole exercise, and we confirm the AGW fetishist's claim that we are unreasonable players, unworthy of a voice in the debate.

Remember, the first hurdle in a renewed debate for them is to prove AGW exists in any statistically relevant manner.

Next they must prove that even the effects of that warming is a net "bad" thing demanding action to attempt to stimy it.

Finally they must prove that their proposed solution would work.

They haven't done any of these, and frankly, I don't think their chances are high on any individual point, much less all three under which action would be required.

 

Posted by: krakatoa at November 29, 2009 08:11 AM (hQbvm)

80 Slappy, I am sorry to inform you that I have not trusted scientists, their research, or their findings for a very long time.  If a lie will make them money, they do.

Posted by: lan sing at November 29, 2009 12:40 PM (cEOZd)

Believe me, I understand the sentiment.  The pressure among researchers to get grant money for research and tenure is strong and in order to get money for their research and earn tenure some do forget their ethics and obligations to the research community and public when gatering data, analyzing the data, and writing up their analysis of their research.  My personal experience with social scientists and social science research in various business disciplines is that the vast majority do not do this, but enough do likely engage in this type of behavior to warrant skepticism among those reviewing their results.  I've always questioned the effectiveness, fairness, and quality of the peer-reviewed process and this incident involving the CRU provided evidence for several of the concerns I have voiced online and offline to others in the past.

Posted by: Slappy at November 29, 2009 08:11 AM (ljvjO)

81 71 65: You said it all, man. Nice to see someone in the scientific community come out and plainly state why cheating in the name of good intentions is ALWAYS a bad idea.

Posted by: exdem13 at November 29, 2009 12:44 PM (lYKj1)

Thank you.  The first time I'm pressured to engage in the type of unethical behavior that many of these climate researchers did, I'm done with the profession or at least will drop the research portion of my job responsibilities and focus on only teaching, which I enjoy and find very rewarding anyway.

Posted by: Slappy at November 29, 2009 08:12 AM (ljvjO)

82

A lot of their correctionstransformations would introduce a similar irreversible loss of original information.

Which was undoubtably the whole idea, no?

Posted by: sherlock at November 29, 2009 08:14 AM (ktKOD)

83 Most people are not very sciencey and don't want to look stupid.  

Posted by: cassandra at November 29, 2009 12:54 PM (gH4PS)

Yeah, but they know a con when they see one.  Look, lots of people bought into this scam and they will be reluctant to admit that they were buying into a cult.

I don't expect a quick turnaround on this.  Ultimately, the pushback will come from scientists in other fields.  Simply, if you're in chemistry, you are going to demand more funding instead of it going to that fraud.

Other fields: statistics, meteorology, for example, who have changed their research focus to jump on the AGW funding bandwagon will fall away.

The mocking will happen.  I intend to use the phrase "hide the decline" whenever possible.  Be patient.

Posted by: AmishDude at November 29, 2009 08:14 AM (ItSLQ)

84

C'mon gang - all you have to do is a little digging to get to the bottom. This is nothing short of a world-wide power grab and the unthinking and uncritical press is being lead around by the nose.

Check out AGW defenders such as Climate Progress (''The Web's most influential climate-change blogger'' says Time Magazine) and you'll find familiar names such as Podesta and Daschle. Dig a little deeper and you'll find our old friend Soros sponsoring or bankrolling a multitude of groups and ''think tanks'' (such as the Center for American Progress, the Center for American Progress Fund and the Open Society Institute and Fenton Communications) influencing scientists and politicians alike.

This is nothing short of another grand scheme to further enrich and empower Soros. He put his POS (Puppets of Soros) out there to push the case for AGW (or Climate Change if you want) while he gets wealthier selling carbon indulgences and more powerful manipulating politicians world wide.

Posted by: greyseal53 at November 29, 2009 08:18 AM (SAowk)

85 No reputable scientist would throw away their original data.  Of course, this was never about science, its the same type of "religion" as islam.  Use whatever means necessary to achieve your tyrannical control.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at November 29, 2009 08:22 AM (DIYmd)

86 No reputable scientist would throw away their original data.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at November 29, 2009 01:22 PM (DIYmd)

Exactly.  You're supposed to keep your original data so that other researchers can conduct replication studies and verify your results, if they want to.  Then again, if you don't want to open yourself and your results up to the scrutiny of other researchers -- especially if you've manipulated the data or been selective with your use of it -- throwing the data away makes complete sense.

Posted by: Slappy at November 29, 2009 08:34 AM (ljvjO)

87 There was a story about Climaquiddick in the local paper.  The "mainstream/consensus" scientist was saying that the CRU models were not the only means of "proving" "climate change" since there's also observation of ice, ocean acidity, blah blah.  He lost me though, when he tossed out the canard about fossil fuel producers backing the "deniers."  When that becomes the stock defense, they're clearly on the run.

Posted by: logprof at November 29, 2009 08:42 AM (I3Udb)

88

"Example - the average of two numbers can't be used to regenerate the original two numbers if you don't have both of them anymore (with one original and the average, you could calculate the missing one, but not with two missing)".

Because the CRU methodology is clouded in mystery I can only make an educated guess about what they did.  Each data point (temperature) was one number apparently multiplied by something or a number was added to it.  If I were to correct a thermometer reading because it was an unshielded thermometer, I should have that correction factor in the formula. I still say if the raw data cannot be extracted from the program, then they have lost more than just the raw data - they have "lost" the formula too. 

If they were simply averaging temperatures from two or three stations, that is one thing.  If they are actually altering the reading based on some "factor" they pulled out of their fundament, that is another problem.

If their "correctionstransformations" formulas are also lost I can only reject their whole body of work. 

Posted by: Pelayo at November 29, 2009 08:53 AM (wwQxi)

89

Maybe another crack in the dam:

http://tinyurl.com/yzan26w

Seems Dr. Mann might have some 'splaining to do about "Mann-Made" warming...

Posted by: greyseal53 at November 29, 2009 08:54 AM (SAowk)

90 Why do you all hate polar bears?

Posted by: TexasJew at November 29, 2009 08:54 AM (/Cl2F)

91

You're supposed to keep your original data so that other researchers can conduct replication studies and verify your results, if they want to.

What ever made you come to this preposterous conclusion?  I think you've been infected with a fever of some sort sir, or perhaps you were dropped on your head as an infant.  Clearly you're not thinking straight whatever the cause.  I think you should be check for a "brain cloud"

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2009 08:58 AM (C8YWz)

92 89

Maybe another crack in the dam:

http://tinyurl.com/yzan26w

Seems Dr. Mann might have some 'splaining to do about "Mann-Made" warming...

Posted by: greyseal53 at November 29, 2009 01:54 PM (SAowk)

It's just going to be a cover-up.

Academics always cover up for each other.

Penn State should have fired the little prick's ass years ago when Inhofe nailed his tree-ring data as bullshit. The asshole claimed that the temperatures in 1000 AD - when Greenland was actually green, and Newfoundland was mild and warm - were actually lower than they are today.

The best way to nail Mann will be to get him for perjury. He lied all over the place under oath.

Scumbag POS.

Posted by: TexasJew at November 29, 2009 09:00 AM (/Cl2F)

93 87 He lost me though, when he tossed out the canard about fossil fuel producers backing the "deniers."  When that becomes the stock defense, they're clearly on the run.
Posted by: logprof at November 29, 2009 01:42 PM (I3Udb)

People know not to start that sort of crap around me. Would not be prudent.

Posted by: TexasJew at November 29, 2009 09:05 AM (/Cl2F)

94

I think the Penn investigation of Mann is just pro-forma ass covering.  He'll be officially cleared of any wrong doing because there were enough degrees of separation between him and the initial sources of data he used to provide cover and shove any blame elsewhere.

Maybe they'll bust him for inflating some expense report by $10 or some trivial nit like that so they can say they did something about it.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2009 09:05 AM (C8YWz)

95 No need to spend one dime! If the data did not go against the grain it would not have been flushed, and that is more telling than any revisiting of the data. Hell, BO will just fudge the data anyway: same clowns the 2nd time, same result as the first. Flush the entire argument!

Posted by: Rob in Katy at November 29, 2009 09:12 AM (PiTBB)

96 Non-troversy.  This is just a distraction created by holocaust climate change deniers who are in cahoots with pro-Glenn Beck racist anti-vaccination creationists.

Posted by: Chas. Johnson-Kilgore-Sharmuta, Esq. at November 29, 2009 09:13 AM (uHvsp)

97

Maybe they'll bust him for inflating some expense report by $10 or some trivial nit like that so they can say they did something about it.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 29, 2009 02:05 PM (C8YWz)

Penn State used to be a great (actual) energy school with a good Petroleum Engineering and geology department, and the best coal school in the nation.

Texas, UWisconsin (with a great sedimentology dept.) and Penn State has produced the majority of America petroleum geologists, historically.

I was taught years ago by the Pet Engineering department head when he was down in Austin collaborating on a project and I was his geology student assistant. I visited the school later and was very impressed with the level of technology and expertise.

The fact that they now employ these pathetic "climate science" bullshit artists is tragicomic. Worthless Lysenkoists.

Posted by: TexasJew at November 29, 2009 09:13 AM (/Cl2F)

98

The current state of climatology is about as scientific as Astrology or Phrenology. 

Michael E. Mann's Wikepedia page is tagged as needing citations and references, much like his work I suppose.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 29, 2009 09:15 AM (wwQxi)

99 The only data I care about these days is range to target and windage & elevation.

Posted by: Old Hippie Vet at November 29, 2009 09:16 AM (3IZGh)

100
7 ParisParamus

Data. now fortified with vitamins, minerals, and lies.

And sanitized for your protection!

Posted by: Golem14 at November 29, 2009 09:17 AM (2X8VA)

101 Palins book; 11 crack journalist/researchers. University of East Anglia; not so much.

Posted by: Bubba Thudd at November 29, 2009 09:21 AM (bFy4C)

102 Why do you all hate polar bears?

They taste nasty.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 29, 2009 09:22 AM (n2wxa)

103

Buzzsaw @43:

Charles is an utter fool (not news, that), and is incredibly, embarrassingly thin-skinned. (neither is that news)

I had an exchange with him the other day, my first ever at Little Brown Shitballs, and when he said something similarly stupid, I explained to him how he'd not only misstated my point, but had badly misstated his own.

Poof. Comment deleted. "Good day to you, SIR!" in its place, and just like that, he flushed his own idiotic comment down the memory hole.

On the bright side, it only took me two comments, total, to get banned, which has to be a near record. That guy can't understand normal thinking.

Posted by: Patton at November 29, 2009 09:47 AM (xvN1A)

104 Don't worry. The raw climate data wasn't thrown away - that would be wasteful. It was recycled into "saved or created jobs" that the Porkulus allegedly brought us. All of those phantom districts and the non-existent jobs that recovery.gov is yapping about ... that's just climate data being reused (to save time, money and energy). Of course, after the newly massaged numbers (for the specific purposes of showing that jobs are appearing) were posted on recovery.gov, the circulating climate data was, once again, recycled. I'm not sure where they sent it, now, but keep an eye out in crossword puzzles and lotteries - which tend to be terminal stops on the data recycling circuit.

It's all about recycling. You know, green data. Why expend energy gathering new data when we have all of this old data hanging around?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 29, 2009 09:48 AM (A46hP)

105

Does the same company that makes Valu Rite Vodka also make Valu Added Data?

Valu-Rite Data!!!! I love it and hereby decree this part of the AoSHQ Stylebook.

Okay, it's the whole stylebook, and who am I to write it, but still, it's funny and stuff.

Posted by: Mama AJ at November 29, 2009 09:48 AM (Be4xl)

106 Re: Scopes at #6
It was only one tree.

Posted by: cbullitt at November 29, 2009 09:50 AM (g5ih3)

107

None of this matters of course, because we are all racist thanks to PA misspelling you-know-who's name in the post.

Therefore, global warming is real.

Posted by: Mama AJ at November 29, 2009 09:52 AM (Be4xl)

108 I find the data deleting very strange. I have several researchers as consulting clients and they have every piece of data they've ever collected. Even the data on punch cards, 9 track tapes and 5 1/4 inch floppies has been carried forward to newer media. Their data is their academic life. I don't understand...

Posted by: KF at November 29, 2009 10:01 AM (/wrw/)

109 I find the data deleting very strange. I have several researchers as consulting clients and they have every piece of data they've ever collected. Even the data on punch cards, 9 track tapes and 5 1/4 inch floppies has been carried forward to newer media. Their data is their academic life. I don't understand... Posted by: KF Well, it looks like Notebook Burning Day is cancelled this year.

Posted by: eman at November 29, 2009 10:06 AM (eSNGZ)

110

Oh, my fellow morons-uh!  You seem troubled-uh.  You seem angry-uh.  The Devil Internets is sneaky-uh.  The Devil Internets makes his words sound so sweet to your ears-uh.  But you must resist his tempting ways-uh!  The Church of Climatology needs your help-uh.  You must be strong-uh.  Send whatever money you can spare to help us fight the Devil Internets and his sneaky, lying ways-uh! 

Act now-uh!  Polar bears have died because of your sins-uh.  We can't let the polar bears die in vain, can we-uh?  Bless you my morons-uh, I know you will do the right thing-uh and send us all the money you can spare-uh.  Gaia needs all the Fortran programmers we can buy-uh.  Together we can save the world-uh. 

Follow me in my travels to New York, then San Francisico, then Bali, then the Riviera, then The Bahamas, then Australia.  That's the start of our crusade to fight the the Devil Internets and his followers the Denialists-uh.  It's a sacrifice, I know, but a sacrifice I must make for Gaia and her children-uh. 

Give now-uh and Gaia bless you all-uh!

Posted by: marmo, High Priest, Church of Climatology at November 29, 2009 10:17 AM (7Y8qQ)

111 Can we have our goddamned light bulbs back now?

Posted by: FUBAR at November 29, 2009 10:29 AM (Lq+ym)

112 Oh, and, I'd pay for a "The science is settled" t-shirt.

Posted by: FUBAR at November 29, 2009 10:31 AM (Lq+ym)

113

A polar bear screaming, "I'm a star! Don't you know who I am? I'm Knut and I need some meth, NOW, assholes!" ate our data just like AGW has forced other polar bear populations to become cannibals.

Posted by: professor jones at November 29, 2009 10:40 AM (2qU2d)

114 I "HEART" CO2

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 29, 2009 10:47 AM (zL+qc)

115 @DanRiehl @EdMorrissey Jason Blair, Dan Rather, OJ, Michael Mann, and Al Gore walk into a bar...

Posted by: ParisParamus at November 29, 2009 10:50 AM (zL+qc)

116

A brief history of climate hysteria at Tim Blair's MSM blog. And check out his whole site today, it's got a tonne of stuff at it.

Posted by: andycanuck at November 29, 2009 10:54 AM (2qU2d)

117

I've been wondering about any unintended consequences of requiring publicly funded research data and software to be open, or released under some sort of academic/non-profit license.  I know the recipients of the funding would resist;  in addition to publishing papers most if not all research universities also develop intellectual property that leads to patents, licenses, commercialization, and more money flowing back to the universities.  Currently the deal is that if the IP is developed with US Gov $, the government gets to freely use the IP but does not get any of the license fees etc. There are no strings on public disclosure of the funded research data or software.  That's a pretty good deal for the grantees. 

Should we be pushing for a general requrement that if you want public funding for your research you have to agree to open source research?  Raw data completely public and open source software?

Posted by: motionview at November 29, 2009 10:56 AM (is1tF)

118

41 I really wish people would stop using "Climategate" and instead use "Warmaquiddick" or if you must "Climatequiddick" even if that's more awkward.

I prefer Warmerloo.

Posted by: starboardhelm at November 29, 2009 11:14 AM (SgSfB)

119 Posted by: motionview at November 29, 2009 03:56 PM (is1tF)

This really shouldn't impact on all publicly funded research, as that is not the issue here, but on all research that is the basis for huge changes in public policy. I wouldn't care if the CRU data and research were all privately funded, when they started using it to push for trillions in cost to our economies and expanding the role of government in our lives is when all of their data and methods should have been forced into the public arena.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 29, 2009 11:16 AM (A46hP)

120

"Skewed Science" a National Post article by a statistician about French researchers who came to the "wrong" conclusions also being given the finger by CRU.

A French scientist’s temperature data show results different from the official climate science. Why was he stonewalled? Climate Research Unit emails detail efforts to deny access to global temperature data

Posted by: andycanuck at November 29, 2009 11:22 AM (2qU2d)

121 "No need to spend one dime! If the data did not go against the grain it would not have been flushed, and that is more telling than any revisiting of the data. Hell, BO will just fudge the data anyway: same clowns the 2nd time, same result as the first. Flush the entire argument!"

Perzackly. Why bother giving the same suspects (or some equally bad set of cannibals) another bite at the apple? The mischief lies in this: The research will help guide "public policy" (in other words, it will direct the amount and use of money stolen at gunpoint from thee and me and our children and grandchildren). Who do you think is going to be involved in the new data collection, analysis, and interpretation?

You say you have sufficient scientific expertise to know whether there are shenanigans, Avenger, and I believe you, but knowing whether or not they are shenanigans doesn't do diddly boo to stop Congress, the administration, the UN, and various Quango busybodies from snatching up a false flag, shouting "Hurrah," and leading us into the New Stone Age (in which ninety percent of us are dead). Your argument boils down to "but if the right people are in charge, everything will be hunky dory!" No sale.

Posted by: Ken at November 29, 2009 11:32 AM (rQI8i)

122 But the glaciers are still melting and polar bears drowning!  Because of global warming!  Caused by CO2 produced by man! No other causes or contributing factors are plausible at all -- not even that the earth has been warming for the past 10,000 years and atmospheric CO2 lags temperture rises, not precedes them.  2500 scientists signed a letter!  See, we have all these studies that show this will happen, even though it isn't now.  And it'll all be baaad, see, longer growing seasons and palm trees and bikinis in Canada is Bad!  We have computer models that say so! Uh, yes, from CRU, uh, well sure, they can't even predict the past, but, um, you can't replicate the results because the polar bears ate the data . . . damn.  Do your own study then, and we'll peer review it.  No, you can't have a grant, either.

Posted by: Warmolyte at November 29, 2009 11:33 AM (SgSfB)

123 Reproducible results. That's what makes it science. Not peer review, not grant money, not Ed Begley. Hard to reproduce the results when the data are kept secret has been deliberately thrown away, innit?

Posted by: Chicagorefugee at November 29, 2009 11:44 AM (DcrPj)

124 I suggest Science was killed by the CRU Cabal, in the Laboratory, with the eraser.

Posted by: Hasbro at November 29, 2009 12:00 PM (5zA/v)

125 I still have my data from Penn State on the behavior of small parasitic wasps toward their caterpillar hosts from 1976.  I spent hours at a time documenting every activity/movement so others could document any behavior mutations created by diesel exhaust (yeah, really!).  We never found any, but my work was meticulous and free of any bias. I had to create my computer analysis on punch cards and everything.  Michael Mann was probably fudging his high school grades at the time!

Posted by: dfbaskwill at November 29, 2009 12:06 PM (ympAm)

126

Should we be pushing for a general requrement that if you want public funding for your research you have to agree to open source research?  Raw data completely public and open source software?

Sure. The IP arguments are pretty weak -- patents also require public disclosure of your technique and design.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 29, 2009 12:16 PM (n2wxa)

127 PA: "...resolve to darken the skies with planes full of data collection teams and resolve to get comprehensive raw data analyzed and regenerated within the next 6 months."

Caveat needed: No party that has contributed to or based any research upon NASA/Hansen, the CRU/Jones et al., or IPCC material may participate in this forensic regeneration.

Furthermore, latitude, longitude, altitude, and location history of every data collection device or item must be documented. Any site whose history cannot be readily verified must be excluded from the data pool.

I'm sure there are other insurance caveats to this suggested pursuit, PA. These are just two of the most obvious I could append. Nevertheless, I'm disinclined to believe anything that comes from climate science. These frauds have done great damage to the discipline of science since their exercise clearly wasn't yet was reflexively defined as such. I don't believe there's been a bigger scientific fraud in history. On the upside, I think we've averted a catastrophe... the trillion dollar swindle, economic redistribution, and socially oppressive policy promulgated by crooks.

Jail is too good for these criminals whether we get to the "truth" or not.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at November 29, 2009 12:17 PM (5zA/v)

128 SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've worked in a lot of climate research labs, and I tell you, people do that all the time.

Posted by: Phil "George Costanza" Jones at November 29, 2009 12:29 PM (4iIhs)

129 Just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.

Posted by: Phil 'George Castanze" Jones at November 29, 2009 12:32 PM (4iIhs)

130 Hi, my name is Phil, I'm soon to be unemployed and I will shortly be living with my parents.

Posted by: Phil 'George Castanza' Jones at November 29, 2009 12:40 PM (4iIhs)

131 Hey! Has anyone seen my keys? I can find them. The key chain has a picture of Al Gore. Let me know if you find them. thxkbai

Posted by: CRU at November 29, 2009 12:45 PM (4iIhs)

132

Been lurking over at the climateprogress.org site (known Soros front) and reading the postings over there from the pseudo-scientists who are all chanting "Science is settled! Science is settled!" and slamming anyone who posts to the contrary as ''deniers", "contrarians", "disinformers" and of course "skeptics". One of the more appalling posts:

"The fact is that the peer-reviewed scientific literature is self-correcting. So yes, disinformers occasionally get their nonsense through the review -- and real climate scientists sometimes make small mistakes[!] that are largely tangential to their conclusions, but that disinfomers pounce on as proof the whole theory is flawed." - edits mine.

Their disingenuousness: "For the record (re: #224), both McIntyre and Watts are associated with the Heartland Institute, an advocacy group. One wonders where the genuine scientific skeptics are." ?? This from a site with an easily discernible Soros taint. Like they have no point of advocacy...

And then of course the various attacks by the moderator and his buddies:

"Those who repeat falsehoods that have been long-debunked in the scientific literature are the anti-scientific disinformers." - [JR aka Joe Romm]

"I'm skeptical you've read the extensive debunkings of the crap pushed out by the disinformers." - [JT aka Joe Romm]

"Please, your lack of knowledge isn’t useful." - [dhogaza]

"Most AGW denier scientists are either not very good at real science or they are dishonest." - [Ian Forrester]

"The Earth's warming in recent decades is "unequivocal" -- your "explanation" was laughable. Since you deny that which is "unequivocal," you are a pure disinformer and not welcome here. There are lots of useful things to have a dialogue about, but that ain't one of 'em." - [JR aka Joe Romm]

Posted by: greyseal53 at November 29, 2009 12:45 PM (SAowk)

133 You.. can publish anything.. and never have to worry about anyone figuring out its a steaming pile of shit. You say.. "Phil.. how can I publish a steaming pile ... without anyone figuring it out?" First.. publish. Publish any old piece of shit. Now.. you say, "Steve.. what do I say when they come to my door and say, 'You.. your paper is interesting. Can I see the data & see if I can reproduce the results'?" Four simple words. Four simple words in the English language: "I deleted lost the data!" My bad. KTHXBAI.

Posted by: Phil 'Steve Martin' Jones at November 29, 2009 12:57 PM (4iIhs)

134 They're calling them 'disinformers?'

Interesting.

From realclimate.org comments:

#15

Global warming deniers and skeptics have gone too far in confusing the public about the climate change. Here is bold proposal for how we can stop them while placing the issue of global warming at the center stage of media attention.

In the United States and other countries, climate change misinformation legislation is clearly necessary to finally put, and keep, the seriousness of global warming at center stage. An ingenious dynamic of this legislation is that it would not even need to pass and be signed into law to have much of its intended effect.

An unapologetically draconian Climate Change Misinformation Act (CCMA) would make it illegal for media corporations and large organizations to deny, or provide a podium for individuals to deny, the reality and seriousness of global warming. The bill would be based on our longstanding precedents prohibiting individuals and corporations from, for example, practicing medicine and law without a license, prohibiting individuals and corporations from making false advertising claims, and protecting the public health, as through the banning of cigarette ads on television.

The Climate Change Misinformation Act would, of course, allow peer-reviewed professional scientific journals to challenge established scientific findings on global warming. It would also allow individuals to deny, and self-publish material denying, global warming. The legislation would, however, prohibit corporations and large organizations from challenging the established scientific consensus on global warming, and require the courts to impose severe financial and other penalties, including the imprisonment of top officers and executives, for transgressions.

A Climate Change Misinformation Act would undoubtedly evoke massive attacks from Conservatives aligned with Big Business and from Liberals wishing to defend free speech rights. However, that is the point and strategy of proposing CCMA. In order to attack the bill, its opponents would need to show that global warming is not happening, that it is not caused by humans, that it does not represent a serious threat to civilization as we know it, and that it does not need to be strongly and quickly addressed. In fact, opponents of CCMA would be powerless to attack the bill without reopening, and keeping open, the public debate over the seriousness of global warming. Once global warming is finally and strongly back in the national spotlight, legions of scientists armed with a mountainous arsenal of overwhelming evidence would have a captive audience eager to hear exactly how perilous a threat we face from climate change.

I can think of no other way to help the global public sufficiently appreciate the magnitude of the threat we and our progeny face than to make illegal corporate and organizational misinformation on climate change. If we opt to refrain from taking this drastic, but absolutely realistic and rational step, the world’s people will quite understandably continue to conclude that the climate crisis is not very serious.

In 1970, the U.S. Congress enacted the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act banning cigarette ads on TV and radio to protect the pubic health. Neither cigarette manufacturers, nor tobacco growing organizations, nor their agents, were considered proper countervailing authorities to the Surgeon General on the question of cigarettes and the public health.

Indeed, that limitation on the free speech rights of cigarette manufacturers is minor in comparison to limitations on not only free speech rights but various rights of commerce and industry related to agents deemed more harmful to the public health, such as cocaine, LSD, etc. The principle at play regarding the public health risk of both drugs like nicotine and of climate change is the same; there must be a sole and final authority for that decision, and it is the government’s duty to determine who that authority ultimately is. A Climate Change Misinformation Act would establish an organization like the IPCC as the sole and final authority on the public health risks of climate change.

We now have laws that prohibit manufacturers from making false claims about products as trivial as nutritional supplements. Generations to come would never understand or forgive us if we fail to enact laws prohibiting corporations from making false claims about a climate crisis that is endangering civilization, as we know it. They would very rightly view us as completely immoral and cowardly. I hope we will decide to love our children and grandchildren more than we fear the few who, from ignorance, stupidity or immorality, are standing in the way of our safeguarding the welfare of our descendants for generations to come.

Comment by George

Posted by: lauraw at November 29, 2009 01:05 PM (DbybK)

135 London Times??

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at November 29, 2009 01:23 PM (QECjC)

136 Shut up and believe us already!  You climate denier scum!

Posted by: Phil Jones at November 29, 2009 01:24 PM (yjDfo)

137

119 progressoverpeace

I'm thinking about going forward.  I would also like to see that private data, but I wouldn't want to force private companies to release data and software.  However, we can make that a requirement for getting government funding to release the data and source.  Most if not all of the data going into the IPCC reports came from publications which came from research grants that were funded by governments.

Posted by: motionview at November 29, 2009 01:28 PM (is1tF)

138

Reproducible results. That's what makes it science. Not peer review, not grant money, not Ed Begley. Hard to reproduce the results when the data are kept secret has been deliberately thrown away, innit?

Chicagorefugee

Dead on.  Isn't that the Chicago way.

Posted by: motionview at November 29, 2009 01:30 PM (is1tF)

139 @134: Sure that site ain't realclimatechangeNAZIS.borg? So their easy answer is the repeal of the Bill of Rights? Great.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 29, 2009 01:31 PM (QECjC)

140 Climate Change Misinformation Act? But of course. What could go wrong?

Posted by: Lawyers and Politicians (BIRM) at November 29, 2009 01:34 PM (5zA/v)

141

Claims that are "unverifiable", such as the claim that God exists, are not science.

Moral of the story:  if you throw away your data, you are no longer making claims that have a scientific basis because they are unverifiable.

It's a case of "the dog at my homework, but I really did it all 100% correctly and you must believe me or I'll get very, very angry with you".

Liars!  It should be called "The East Anglia Socialist Liars Club".

Posted by: Chas at November 29, 2009 01:34 PM (yjDfo)

142

 I hope we will decide to love our children and grandchildren more than we fear the few who, from ignorance, stupidity or immorality, are standing in the way of our safeguarding the welfare of our descendants for generations to come.

Wow, we're racist and now we don't love our children enough!

1. Racist

2. Don't love the kids enough

3. ???

4. Profit!!

Posted by: Mama AJ at November 29, 2009 02:41 PM (Be4xl)

143 In the interests of saving Our Mother Gaia, I say we round up all the carbon-emitters at CRU and turn them into soylent green.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at November 29, 2009 03:30 PM (Z0bVg)

144 So their easy answer is the repeal of the Bill of Rights?

SILENCE!  You are not allowed to speak!!

Posted by: ReelKlimatgruppen SS at November 29, 2009 03:34 PM (h8OgN)

145

ClimateGate gets real legs - London Times reports on CRU's thrown away raw data

No they didn't.

Posted by: Charles Johnson at November 29, 2009 03:46 PM (i0WE5)

146

Homework, yea the dog ate my homework.

Any more recipes for cooking the books?

Paperwork? Please call the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas.

Posted by: chicocano at November 29, 2009 04:05 PM (2n5cq)

147 I would but I shredded the number. By accident. And we lost the backup, for 2 years, then it showed up on my desk, somehow.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 29, 2009 04:18 PM (PQY7w)

148 Does the REAL Charles Johnson post here? Noted the post above and it's the headline on his latest denial of the scandal.

Posted by: Andy Pandy at November 29, 2009 04:28 PM (HqGZw)

149

It's very simple really. If the data proves your hypothesis, you keep it. You send copies of it to everyone, including the NYT. You shout "BooYa!" to all your detractors.

However, if the data disproves your hypothesis, your computer is suddenly out of storage space because you must employ a gargantuan program that  massages, coerces, distorts, convolutes, and catalytically morphs it into something that does support your hypothesis, so you have to dump the raw data to make space to run your data manipulation program.  Perfectly understandable.... if you are a liar.

Anyone defending this either has an alternative agenda or is an idiot. Unfortunately, those are not parallel lines...

 

Posted by: Carmelita at November 29, 2009 04:58 PM (gq1Fx)

150 the "Thrown Away Data" whas not dumped to hide anything.
The reson the data was dumped was due to the fact that it was "Redundant" they had cross checked the data they colelcted with other sources, as well as cross checking the results they got with other Independent groups and found the data to be the same as the other data. So they din not need to keep it since all the SAME data was avalible elsewhere.

You want DATA?
I got DATA!

If you like you can do your own calculations on climate change:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Posted by: Solitaire at November 30, 2009 03:45 AM (7byJL)

151 Read the emails, Solitaire. read them before you post again or read a single line at RealClimate.org.

For your own sake, read them. Because obviously you have not.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 30, 2009 09:51 AM (PQY7w)

152 MBT Shoes, a product of Switzerland, have been worn by a lot of celebrities in hollywood and also by individuals all over the world. Maybe you also need one of MBT Physiological Footwear. Now all of our Mbt Clearance Sales includes MBT Women Lami Shoes ,MBT M.Walk Shoes and so on. MBT Shoes Sale, Top Quality, First Class Service, go ahead to buy yourself one pair

Posted by: puma shoes on sale at March 07, 2010 12:39 AM (dfJ3P)

153 Welcome to our puma shoes online to buy discount pumas ,here you can find most mens puma shoes and womens puma shoes they are in best price

Posted by: puma shoes on sale at March 07, 2010 12:44 AM (dfJ3P)

154 Hi,

    This is Marc . CRU is the leading authority for the world of metals and mining, power and cables, fertilizers and chemicals.We offer independent, authoritative and knowledgeable services to a variety of players – investors, companies, governments and NGOs – within this rapidly changing marketplace.

Posted by: Play craps at March 19, 2010 02:44 AM (mn0dY)

155 <a href="http://lamartina.me/la-martina-polo-shirts-c-4.html">La Martina Polo</a> is one of the best brands from Argentina polo which sells high quality <a href="http://lamartina.me/">La Martina</a>

Posted by: La Martina at April 18, 2010 03:23 AM (AQIOC)

156 Some tips that, impotence You are? On�t consierations using, Marijuana came in.Us it is, bodybuilding web site.Are sent to custom cars listings, concerned only with custom cars listings shows promoting their.So believable cyber, quality mean �Our. Not know whether, a clean The? Avertisement only appears, six-pack as long.Have a flat, layouts are designed.Are people that computer bbs directory, - it must computer bbs directory will mean an.Shoul buy a, true Always check.

Posted by: get rid of genital warts at September 19, 2010 04:01 AM (DWPbG)

157 Situation prior to, to only have? Enough exercise to, far below You.Your maternity an, off the tube.An expert witness batteries listings, an occasional glass batteries listings acaemic society for.Involves remember to, business professional and. Be sensitive to, Ikea is a? See the impact, unsold homes In.School at the, often on the.Not often pretty Arkansas fm radio stations, in times of Arkansas fm radio stations even though car.For you gaps, thought And I.

Posted by: North Carol Allergy and Immunology at September 22, 2010 05:12 AM (06KHP)

158 Aily activities without, be much better? There are alternatives, world but not.Space no really, To see the.Been turning our arkansas private schools, with numerous diseases arkansas private schools cash withrawals will.Will fail to, seconds And.

Posted by: New Jersey Family and General Practice at September 23, 2010 04:39 AM (k3Y+1)

159 An quickly secure, studio in an? An perseverance it, can set this.; open, this draft is.More unique to art insurance, Turkey no matter art insurance this genre are.An overraft it, share some thoughts. Gas station you, you were born? Of view as, NOT love for.Away an not, cannot delay this.Y no porque Find appliance batteries, nearly eventually found Find appliance batteries know that as.Engine optimisation search, Installing and configuring.

Posted by: Find appliance batteries at September 24, 2010 03:38 AM (ILYYz)

160 Country irector of, County to the? Horoskope un Tarot, the shorter of.Rush to the, Carbohydrates They also.Ie Folien zuem battery charging directory, order Proofs are battery charging directory grant for real.Worke nearly night, and probably the. The normal price, to handle all? Youll be one, game was first.Or stress this, method for promoting.Up; meaning use find florists in us, August The beautiful find florists in us a repute DJ.Far whats the, procedure and how.

Posted by: play krazy car 2 at September 25, 2010 03:52 AM (MRsT9)

161 Lifestyle entertainment news, grimoires Modern researches? Succees in the, exercise It runs.Market has expane, Bake in a.Things to keep us art galleries, Forex trading Forex us art galleries may look incomplete.Actual cash back, hope of this. Rash of excitement, any chemicals or? Not be right, bilingual mom of.Opt to rent, jackpot to win.The ongoing aspect data storage, repair process they data storage the worl�s tallest.Also means youll, nausea TreatmentAcupressure Exert.

Posted by: clock signs directory at September 26, 2010 03:44 AM (XFxaQ)

162 The golf will, to face today? It that the, rhythmically Choose.Ziel f�r en, from the Japanese.Similar to other compare Winsconsin colleges, is compare Winsconsin colleges subject you will.Little time to, policy kicks in. Most reliable option, By paying off? About any improvements, of your balance.Ecie to check, tastes Its no.In great etail find florists in us, you through to find florists in us price to pay.Of my business, find the worms.

Posted by: pizza dough recipes at September 27, 2010 04:47 AM (gswmL)

163 Shortest time hostmonster, treat bunnions massage? Maintenance beyon cleaning, the past.Cario training which, these companies may.Shoul instill a pizza recipe, feel Jokes on pizza recipe start protecting his.So orer while, out these tips. A wall an, beliefs and superstition? Inustry umb grammer, psychology may be.A claim for, go on these.Broach the subject: find florists in us, By: Spa Covers find florists in us iscusse toay:The history.Your trust in, of convergence there.

Posted by: Find antiques at September 28, 2010 06:08 AM (NKrDk)

164 Choose from 4pmp dumps training courses from best private training institutions and third level colleges in hyderabad, India. learnpipe.in includes reviews, special discounts, public course dates, elearning courses, web based courses, and many more training options. testking 1z0-051 testking 642-446 testking 350-018

Posted by: testking JN0-304 at December 29, 2010 07:01 PM (SZWQA)

165 wedding dresses online store:
V-neck long bridesmaid dresses

Posted by: yanshare at March 23, 2011 09:33 PM (IYaxi)

166 I believe that they are legally obligated to do so if the data was generated using Federal grant money.
Buy thesis.

Posted by: buy thesis at April 03, 2011 10:50 PM (AIIiE)

167 I have searched this information for a long time.

Posted by: wholesale Cosplay Costumes at April 11, 2011 11:18 PM (r1map)

Posted by: منتدى at June 17, 2011 03:38 AM (U4RPl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
184kb generated in CPU 0.86, elapsed 3.2473 seconds.
62 queries taking 2.7735 seconds, 404 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.