Quantcast
Climate scientists caught lying - Police Investigating - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 1 of 5 1 2 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 82

Thread: Climate scientists caught lying - Police Investigating

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Peoples Republic of Albertastan
    Posts
    5,245
    Rep Power
    21

    Default Climate scientists caught lying - Police Investigating

    Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming

    5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made. Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message'

    More than 5,000 documents have been leaked online purporting to be the correspondence of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia who were previously accused of ‘massaging’ evidence of man-made climate change.
    Following on from the original 'climategate' emails of 2009, the new package appears to show systematic suppression of evidence, and even publication of reports that scientists knew to to be based on flawed approaches.
    And not only do the emails paint a picture of scientists manipulating data, government employees at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are also implicated.

    One message appeared to show a member of Defra staff telling colleagues working on climate science to give the government a ‘strong message’.

    The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.

    ‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.
    'They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’
    Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.

    Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.
    'I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.'

    The University of East Anglia, where most of the emails originated - none of the newly released emails appear to be post 2009, but clarify the extent of government involvement in the scandal
    In another of his emails, he wrote: 'I’ve been told that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is above national Freedom of Information Acts.
    'One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.'

    Climate change fears 'have been exaggerated' say scientists who claim apocalyptic predictions are unlikely
    Other scientists are clearly against such a policy, but some seemed happy to collude with concealing and destroying evidence.

    One nervous scientist wrote: 'The figure you sent is very deceptive.'

    'I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,' wrote another.

    The lead author of one of the reports, Jonathan Overpeck, wrote, 'The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.'
    A weak performance by Environment Secretary Chris Huhne on Question Time has helped to inflame the row over the second leak of private UEA emails - now described as Climategate 2.0.

    Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, appears before the Science and Technology Committee after the last dump of leaked climate-change emails
    Former Chancellor Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation warned against ignoring 'shortcomings' in a letter strongly critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    It said: 'The BBC, in determining its policy towards the coverage of global warming, which is of course not simply a scientific issue but an economic and a political issue, too, ought to shred that section of the Jones review and revert to the impartiality laid down in its charter.'
    He was also strongly critical of sections of the media who lent support to the scientists.

    Andrew Orlwowski, UK science site The Register's science correspondent comments on one email that says, 'What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'

    'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.'

    Orlowski says, 'That won't be necessary.'
    Clive Crook, a commentator for the Atlantic, who described the earlier inquiries into the Climategate emails as 'ineffectual' and 'mealy mouthed', reportedly said, 'The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me.
    'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.'
    There is other correspondence from scientists such as Prof Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, some of which have a distinct feel of PR 'spin'.
    The release of the information echoes the 'Climategate' leaks of hacked private emails two years ago ahead of crunch climate talks in Copenhagen that referred to ways to ‘hide the decline’ in global warming.
    A series of independent reviews cleared the East Anglia researchers of impropriety, but they were told they had been too secretive.
    Today's leak may also be timed to disrupt the next session of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change next week in South Africa.

    The new email leak is accompanied by a text file which appears to protest against the huge expense of anti-warming technologies - highlighting deaths from poverty against the $36 billion expense of 'green' energy
    The emails have been released in the form of quotes carefully 'chosen' to show bias, or that scientists were pursuing a particular agenda in their research.
    The unnamed individuals who released them chose the 5,000 emails from keyword searches, saying, 'We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics.'
    The emails were posted on a Russian server - Sinwt.ru - as a downloadable ZIP file in an apparent attempt to cause disruption in advance of next week's climate change conference in Durban.
    They were rapidly reposted on climate-sceptic blogs such as The Air Vent.
    It is not clear, though, whether they are new, or indeed whether they indicate any kind of conspiracy.
    The release of the data was accompanied by a 'press release' in the form of a readme file, which said, 'Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.'
    'Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.'
    'Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline,' said the file.
    The identity of the people who posted it was not revealed - although the clear political statement is new.
    The file also contains more than 200,000 other emails, which are encrypted, and no password is provided.
    Presumably, this is to protect the individuals involved - or simply because the material is so non-controversial or boring that it's not worth releasing.

    NASA thermal satellite image showing the world's arctic surface temperature trends: Today's emails appear to show scientists interested in painting a particular picture of such trends - but the information is not new
    The University of East Anglia has not confirmed whether the material is genuine.
    None of the material appears to be new, either: it seems to date from the first release in 2009.
    It also occurs against a rather different scientific background, after the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature review of climate-science data by prominent climate sceptic Richard Muller, which analysed 1.6 billion temperature records, and concluded that global warming was a genuine effect.

    It is still unclear what effect - or combination of effects - is causing the current warming of the atmosphere, which has risen around one temperature in the past 50 years.
    Professor Mann, speaking to the Guardian, described the release as 'truly pathetic.'

    'Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context.

    'I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.'
    A police investigation is ongoing.
    Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1fEsslJHd
    Originally posted by adam c

    Line goes up, line goes down, line does squiggly things and fucks Alberta
    "The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ST184
    Posts
    104
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Didn't everyone already know this?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    403
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    argh, not this again.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Victoria
    My Ride
    1990 4runner
    Posts
    259
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Yeah shocking. Scientists with a vested interest in a side doctor their results. Stop the presses.
    Last edited by Freeskier; 11-30-2011 at 07:11 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    403
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    ^^what do you do for work? i'm just curious since you are taking such a hard line stance on something you know jack about? so what do you do for work, I want to give you an example of what you sound like, in your own language.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Victoria
    My Ride
    1990 4runner
    Posts
    259
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Me? I'm a fisheries observer/survey biologist for DFO out here on the west coast

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    403
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Freeskier
    Me? I'm a fisheries observer/survey biologist for DFO out here on the west coast
    well I don't beleive any of your numbers are right, and in fact, I think you're making them up because you have a vested interest in keeping your job.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Peoples Republic of Albertastan
    Posts
    5,245
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Originally posted by st184
    Didn't everyone already know this?
    Yes it has already come out but another 5000 emails were found. It is quite clearly outlined in the news story why this has come up again.


    Originally posted by Guillermo


    well I don't beleive any of your numbers are right, and in fact, I think you're making them up because you have a vested interest in keeping your job.

    Jeez angry much? Why not just add something productive or stay out of it.
    Originally posted by adam c

    Line goes up, line goes down, line does squiggly things and fucks Alberta
    "The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    403
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Cos

    Jeez angry much? Why not just add something productive or stay out of it.
    because we've had this thread 23498723849723894 times, and it always ends the same way: with 75% of beyond claiming that all of science is corrupt and engaged in a conspiracy to make people think something that isn't true. thing is, there aren't many folks here who are even qualified to have an opinion, since they don't understand science or how the "game" of science works. i can tell you from experience that there is not some vast conspiracy among virtually every "real" scientist in the entire world regarding climate change.

    when is the last time you got in a heated argument with the guy fixing your water heater? what about the c-train driver, do you argue with him about the way he judges braking and acceleration?
    Last edited by Guillermo; 11-30-2011 at 07:27 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Victoria
    My Ride
    1990 4runner
    Posts
    259
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Originally posted by Guillermo


    well I don't beleive any of your numbers are right, and in fact, I think you're making them up because you have a vested interest in keeping your job.
    Uh good one. So, tell me are you actually surprised by this? You think the politicization of research in an issue as complicated as climate science is a non-issue?

    Scientists working for environmental companies, lobbyists and political parties will sometimes (not everyone and not always) suppress their results if the data doesn't support their hypotheses just the same as what scientists do in big business. Even in the fisheries, finding data presented in an unbiased way is near impossible. See: Cohen commission.
    Last edited by Freeskier; 11-30-2011 at 07:26 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    403
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Freeskier
    Uh good one. So, tell me are you actually surprised by this? You think the politicization of research in an issue as complicated as climate science is a non-issue?
    LOL @ you. if you indeed are making your numbers up, you should be fired. i assume you're not publishing your faked data, but if you are, are you saying the rest of science is involved in your conspiracy?

    there is a lot more money on the skeptic side. why aren't all of teh scientists involved in that conspiracy, then? (that's a rhetorical question.)

    Originally posted by Freeskier
    Scientists working for environmental companies, lobbyists and political parties will sometimes (not everyone and not always) suppress their results if the data doesn't support their hypotheses just the same as what scientists do in big business. Even in the fisheries, finding data presented in an unbiased way is near impossible. See: Cohen commission.
    BTW - when I say "scientist," i mean professionals publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. usually these folks are employed by Universities.
    Last edited by Guillermo; 11-30-2011 at 07:32 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Peoples Republic of Albertastan
    Posts
    5,245
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Originally posted by Guillermo


    when is the last time you got in a heated argument with the guy fixing your water heater? what about the c-train driver, do you argue with him about the way he judges breaking and acceleration?
    Last I checked you are the one who took this thread into a 'heated argument' as you call it. No one else seemed too worked up about it. 62 people have read this thread and didnt feel the need to post so it was obviously worth while and not creating a heated debate.

    I question everything that gets done. I know very few people who are actually trustworthy and truly knowledgeable about their job. As anyone on here I deal with knows I demand a person who can stand up to my scrutiny.

    - Masked Bandit
    - MasonCGY
    - Urban X
    - Rat Fink
    - Sorath
    - JDMXSI

    All have my trust. They are all very good at their jobs. I dont deal with people who are retarded and the only way for me to understand if they know it is to question them.




    So short answer is 'all the time'
    Originally posted by adam c

    Line goes up, line goes down, line does squiggly things and fucks Alberta
    "The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Victoria
    My Ride
    1990 4runner
    Posts
    259
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Now I'm lost. I don't get the point you're making Guillermo.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    403
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Cos


    Last I checked you are the one who took this thread into a 'heated argument' as you call it. No one else seemed too worked up about it. 62 people have read this thread and didnt feel the need to post so it was obviously worth while and not creating a heated debate.
    When I said "heated argument," I was referring to the 2398472389472 other threads about this topic -- not this one.
    Last edited by Guillermo; 11-30-2011 at 07:44 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    6,854
    Rep Power
    28

    Default

    ...
    Last edited by Sugarphreak; 07-08-2019 at 12:00 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 1987
    Location
    SK
    My Ride
    Fit Dugan Signature (2016)
    Posts
    3,380
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Originally posted by Freeskier
    Now I'm lost. I don't get the point you're making Guillermo.
    His point is always the same (a la Al Gore/David Suzuki), if you don't believe then you are wrong/stupid/misinformed/uneducated/otherwise inferior or ignorant.

    There is but one truth and it is thine own. If this were a few hundred years ago, they'd burn you at the stake for your dissent. Guillermo and his kind are basically the Mormons of enviro-science, you'll burn in hell if you don't believe.

    I do love his dedication to pizza though!
    Last edited by JRSC00LUDE; 12-01-2011 at 08:37 AM.
    Originally posted by SJW
    Once again another useless post by JRSCOOLDUDE.
    Originally posted by snowcat
    Don't let the e-thugs and faggots get to you when they quote your posts and write stupid shit.
    Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
    I say stupid shit all the time.
    ^^ Fact Checked

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 1987
    Location
    SK
    My Ride
    Fit Dugan Signature (2016)
    Posts
    3,380
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Dbl post
    Originally posted by SJW
    Once again another useless post by JRSCOOLDUDE.
    Originally posted by snowcat
    Don't let the e-thugs and faggots get to you when they quote your posts and write stupid shit.
    Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
    I say stupid shit all the time.
    ^^ Fact Checked

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cowtown
    My Ride
    10' 4Runner SR5
    Posts
    6,392
    Rep Power
    61

    Default

    I think his point is that not all scientists are out take bribes and support someone else's agenda. It happens and a topic this debatable, it's obvious you're going to see it. How about the ads back in the day where doctors were advocating smoking to increase your health. Would you write off all doctors as scamming asshats?

    I think we all know where we stand on this issue, or at least I know I do. There is just so much garbage on the internet and it's hard to decipher what is true and what is misinterpreted and where the data came from, how they go it etc. A big problem is that not that many people have access to literally thousands of journals like students/academics do. I just think someone with such a vested interest in the topic would source their opinion from more than just internet blogs/news articles/forums. Maybe they're right. Maybe they're wrong. But how many people have actually looked into reading entire publications out of scientific journals (not some jackass taking bits and pieces out of it)? I remember one of my classes I took had us do an assignment where we were asked to find a news article covering a journal article and review how well they did in comparison to the original paper. Needless to say, it was frigging disappointing.

    For the record, I obviously don't condone fraudulent data or "lossing" some numbers to stick to a program. It happens and those people should never be able to publish anything for the rest of their life.
    Ultracrepidarian

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    You Crazy
    Posts
    2,008
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    so besides opinions etc about some private emails..... Where is the evidence the science was 'bad'?

    these emails look to be from the same era as th3 originals. No evidence of bad science, just a bunch of creative interpretation and statements taken out of context. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technolo...mate-politics/

    I also do not see a police investigation. Who made that up?

    edit.....ohhhh cops are investigating the hacker. Lol. K, that may happen lmao
    Last edited by Toma; 12-01-2011 at 04:48 AM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    You Crazy
    Posts
    2,008
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    let me give an example of 'data manipulation'.

    I consider myself an 'expert' at dyno testing and my equipment. At one point the dyno manufacturer offered me a job lol. Anyway.....Sometimes when I test a car, I get bad data.

    since I am an 'expert' in my field, I can recognize the error, and then either repair equipment, calibrate a sensor or correct the test procedure.

    I then throw away the data. I do not use bad data as a baseline or include it in th average.

    I retest, and gather new data.

    to the lay person.... This may seem odd. But that's why an expert in their field is doing the work, and not a lay person.

    now. The 'unethical' part. I don't always disclose to the customer. Some of them just would not understand, and would only be needlessly confused. The WORST thing is an internet expert know it all , who is present during the error. Invariably, with incomplete understanding, they begin to 'think' and draw the wrong conclusions. I do not have the ability to try and teach them my years of experience in 10 minutes lol.


    climate science is very complex, and you leave it to science and the scientific method to sort through. In the end you get almost unanimous consensus in the community and the dissenters are invariably lobbyists for corporations. You can't compare the knowledge of a 8+ years of PhD education plus years of research to casual internet reading most doubters put in.
    Last edited by Toma; 12-01-2011 at 05:28 AM.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Google dumps ALEC for "lying" about climate change

    By Toma in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 09-25-2014, 04:58 PM
  2. WTF??!?! Big business joins scientists in climate change conspiracy??!?!?!

    By FixedGear in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 15
    Latest Threads: 01-24-2014, 04:30 PM
  3. BC police investigating the pedobaiting teens

    By 1barA4 in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 26
    Latest Threads: 11-17-2011, 11:46 AM
  4. Police investigating fatal hit and run

    By Markham in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 3
    Latest Threads: 10-31-2011, 03:11 PM
  5. Replies: 42
    Latest Threads: 09-05-2010, 10:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •