I mean FIRST.. we had unauthorized recordings about Pedo sex-slave traficking pranks.. now THIS! Lefty media suddenly very concerned about propriety of hacking to uncover profiteering conspiracy! The full story's not in yet, but something MUST be done about security!!!! Didja note there wasnt a damn thing in the beeb about the CONTENTS and what they might mean.... Oh... the spinning wheels are singing late into the night, I tell ya! UPDATE: The Daily Telegraph has BETTER stuff than ambiguous 'data tricking' references. missives to delete emails, stop publishing in non-correct journals, etc. The thing is I aint gonna start crowing yet, but I stand by my original thoughts: 'Man caused' Climate Change is a scam. I've thought so ever since I saw Gore pointing to that graph on global temps and CO2. The graph says "Aint NO way CO2 causes it." And you dont need to be a fuckin climatologist to figure THAT out. Of course it seems that graph has disappeared from the net. And also the original data set the IPCC models were based on...... Lost! Just an accident, I'm sure.
God Bless the Internet! 'Hopenhagen'is TOAST! The biggest scam ever put over on Western Civilization will not make it ... unless some people are simply unbelievably lemming like. And that is up to you lemmings. Here's a summary of just SOME o the emails that were pilfered in what seems to me to be an inside job by someone who just couldnt stand it anymore. Note: any datafiles could be forged.. emails are much more difficult to forge.... What this is is a conspiracy to defraud and cover up the fraud. ... and if there's no parliamentary hearing on this, then the British have totally given over to elitist autocracy. Yep... that OFFICIALLY turns the issue into ClimateGate. sorry to all you that are tired of the terminology. Just a reminder to some of you.. no reputable scientist tries to fit data into his conclusions. Nor does a reputable scientist try to cover up conflicting data and demean those who disagree with his conclusions. Unless there's a LOT of money on the line, eh? And guess where the godfather of internet debunking stands on this.. you guessed it, Charles at Little Green Footballs is sinking deeper into depression as you read this. And i cant WAIT for AlGore's press release.
Re: RE: God Bless the Internet! Your opinion is noted .. and locked in. How much GE stock you own, anyway? Dont suppose you'd actually like to argue the AGW fraud issue on the merits? heh
No Baby Seals were Clubbed.. .. to death during the making of 'PlaneStupid' It's Raining Bears, Hallejah!' Just another indicator of what the educated and informed elite think of you wankers! Great Comments Here! - - -- -- - - -- Also:NYT: We wont publish Illegally Acquired Documents Yeah... Right! - - -- - - -- - Guardian Deletes! Well, hell yeah.... I posted detailed questioning on the graph as I wrote above on Real Climate and it stayed there like oh a half an hour then there must have been a database glitch or something. I was stupid or I would have used 'Print Screen'... they shortly changed to moderator posting of comments.
Re: RE: God Bless the Internet! Sorry... Your favorite media may not be covering this but perhaps you should think about broadening your horizons a little. ClimateGate: The Fix is In If those CRU guys were in a private company taking government research funding, there would already be charges being compiled and they'd be heading for jail. It's becoming clear where the bodies are buried and I dont know whether it's just you hating me to be right on anything to do with politics. But I think it's time for you to back off and admit either you LIKE setting yourself up... OR that you like the taste of AlGore's turds. I'm sorry but I dont give you any grief on stuff you've been proven right about. And btw.. I will give you credit that you didnt pull that shit when I pointed out the corn-ethanol scam.
Fake but Accurate IV.. The main world press is busy covering the upcoming Copenhagen {Hopenhagen!} conference which they all hope will result in finding a way to tax energy enough to overcome the malaise brought about by the world credit crisis. Meanwhile the 'pantheon of denier-deniers' try to wave away the scandal at CRU by saying that 'other sources' back up east anglia findings. They point to IPCC for that.. yet IPCC is based on East Anglia results. So they point to Hansen at NASA who, if I'm not mistaken, has had to change a few of those tricky data points, himself. And based his Sat climatology on CRU findings taken forward. Of course the original dataset is STILL 'missing' and the only results are compiled by the tricky code residing at East Anglia. MEANWHILE.. a small group of climatologists in NZ have found THEIR 'official warmeners' fiddling the data to show recent warming. They havent 'lost' the original though.. and re running the data without a gimmick show the temp results essentially flat. As is the case in France, a real scientist there shows european average daily low temps jumping one degree in 87 and staying there, since. Now .. while that's all very interesting, it ignores the REAL problem. We have the world's politicians basing their hysterical desire to raise taxes on everything we do in our daily lives on trumped up science. It doesnt matter whether or not the temps are rising, or how much man has contributed to that.. it's based on bunk. I think it's interesting that the Jones Gang notices -in those emails- how to man-made FIX the warming problem, it's been mentioned elsewhere, too. And a lot cheaper than cutting back carbon as drastically. Fixing it by additive measures was never the goal, though. MORE government funding would be required for that. 'Cherchez le Buck!' - There's your 'corporatism', 24! Anyone else notice a similarity to the Russian Mafia? {I got all kinda links if you guys want 'em... but somehow I dont think most of you are ready to admit your elected could be so stupid, or so desperate to ream you} - if you elect to find out what the invested intellectual elite and their press toadies ARENT telling you, here's a good roundup of what's actually going on. Bishop Hill blog Be warned.. the LAST media to actually admit this fraud will be BBC and the NYT. CBS is already sniffing the truth, as is one of the biggest Goreacle kneelers at the Guardian: Monbiot. Speaking of Gore... didja know his cover illustration for his new fraud-book shows a hurricane {one of about six in the photoshop} forming on the equator? - Yep... he's a REAL SCIENCE GUY! Hint.. take all those dollars you're losing by the Fed monetary actions to a toilet on the equator and note which way they swirl when you flush 'em. By the way.. I had an idea the other day and neglected to annoy some of you with it. I should have. Somebody on some blog mentioned Gaia not liking to be trifled with. I'd flashed on an old commercial.. for butter, I think.. Paraphrased: "Dont mess with Mother Nature. She doesnt like being made fun of." or made to look weak, evidently. Also flashed on theme of "My name is Earl" heh
IPCC: No worries, sahib! INTERVIEW-Climate science untarnished by hacked emails-IPCC speaking directly from AlGore's ass: In other words: 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain'! - - - - -- - - - - And btw, despite the thread title, there is almost NO possibility this 'problem' resulted from hacking. The content and selection points almost certainly to a 'Whistleblower'!
CRU plausible Deniability Phil Jones wrote a rather weak rebuttal to the charge that the original dataset on which CRU did the 'massaging' had been dumped. He said the data was so voluminous that there wasnt room for storage on East Anglia servers at the time and it was still available from other sources. Points: 1. All scientific data centers have {or had} tape storage before disk storage got so cheap. The idea that East Anglia no longer had room to 'store' the operative dataset insults information technologists everywhere. 2. For Peer Review, it's imperative that the original operative data be intact as compiled. Assume this data was 'evidence' for litigation, and the 'Evidence Room burned down', the whole lot would be thrown out if all that remained was photos and copies of the original evidence and the forensic reports on it. 3. Relying on separately compiled data from other sources, such as NASA, cant possibly replicate the data analysis that CRU passed on to IPCC. And IPCC made CRU findings the bulk of their argument. Now, since I only ever was a practical engineer, observing but not 'doing',and I know that stuff, why does someone who is entrusted with the actual DOING think they can make that argument! *A dataset can be described as either a compilation of data obtained from external sources OR an index to the original source files, which can be used to recreate the compilation. As you might expect, professionalism demands a method of traceability. If Jones still had an index file to the source data files I would expect him to point that out.. and give it up. It would obviously make his case, but he didnt say that.
Re: RE: CRU plausible Deniability By your comment I assume that you dont think people trying to use falsified scientific process in order to change your.. and I mean specifically YOUR, not rhetorical... future deserves a thread of its own on a site that has like 50 readers? Is that what youre saying, bunky?
RE: CRU plausible Deniability Okay.. I'll take that as you dont care. Now, since I'm the over-analyser.. should I pigeon-hole you as: * dont want to know about it. or * dont want to think about it. or * whatever AlGore sez Or is there a difference? - -- -- - Some more inconvenient truth: Well.. maybe. Certainly we know where I live that melting/retreating glaciers create rivers {and, IIRC, advancing ones create aquifers}... but there's no absolute rule saying that if glaciers are melting, there's more water at any given time. OR that there's less if they are building. Because it depends on the expanse covered and the differentiation of the average high from {I think, but not sure} the mean -not average- temperature. However, on the whole, the argument makes more sense than foothill droughts signifying melting at the summits. And I'll tend to trust those who looked at a lot of them rather than those who looked at a few.
And apparently there's some budding Climate Scientists not sure they want a vocation where they might have to prove their conclusions: A good response from an AGW believer: Read it all.. I'll settle for her take on it.
CRU Unravel in situ via instapundit, Roger L Simon sez Actually, that may happen but, as an optimistic cynic, I expect nothing more than a 'reset'. The connection to the research money trail will probably not go away. If I took the pessimist tack, I'd have to say that the 'Boxer types' win out in the end. And the public continues to lose all faith in scientific inquiry and the press that reports it. Easier to say: 'WTH, I got more important things to worry about.' I hope that isnt true. *** Of course, the 'hacker' wasnt a hacker... he was a 'whistleblower'. A good thing in Boxer's view of the Enron scam, a bad thing when it comes to her power and control of 'green science'. Not to mention the chance to make a few bucks investing green. - - -- - - -- - - Read Judith Curry, a real scientist and AGW advocate on the issue: Climate Scientist: Time For More Transparency Telling: That's exactly right. I didnt know who the hell Curry was, though I've been following this for a long time. The blogs I read, either agnostic or anti-AGW simply point to her 'let the light shine' viewpoint. What more can you ask for!
Goreacle Cancels.. .. ..appearance at Nopenhagen. Last minute schedule conflicts, no doubt. - - - -- - - - Word!
I've looked at this thread numerous time but have still not been able to read it all. However, thanks for posting it because otherwise I would have no idea about the hacking. It is not that I deny man made global warming (and if calling them "deniers" isnt a dead give away to bad science then I dont know what is) it is that I believe scientists dont fully understand what's going on. Why do scientists do research in any field? - because they want to understand it better. It's as simple as that. There are thousands and thousands of scientiests doing research related to climate science now because they want to understand it better - and, more importantly, that's where the research dollars are flowing at the moment. The other give away to the nonsense surrounding this issue is that any real scientist should welcome the questioning of their research. That is what science is all about. I do science for a living and I still get a little internally annoyed when someone questions what I have done. However, I quickly learned to not only listen to these questions but to welcome them. Now I actually make a point to thank anyone who questions what I have done no matter how obnoxiously they framed their questions. The reason is that these questions either strengthen your case and understanding or they show you were wrong about or missing something. Anyone who truly wants to solve a problem or learn something in science knows this and welcomes dissent. When you read some of the emails it is difficult to think of any context which makes them acceptable. They show a disregard for this essential element of scientific discovery
This is exactly why this is a separate thread from my regular rant. You are BY FAR not the only one who has told me this. My brother, who has no love for the Goreacle, but quit listening to talk radio because it depressed him, was floored. Another friend who gets her news from NPR and PBS and the Col Dispatch had never heard of it. A certain California Senator, who ran a vital committee hearing in 2008 so that an Environmental Protection Agency whistleblower who accused the Bush administration of failing to address greenhouse-gas emissions appropriately could have his say. and who.. championed the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, fought for whistleblowing rights for defense contractor employees (to ferret out bureaucratic waste) and who... champions whistleblowing for nurses (to protect patients' rights). This senator elected by the good people of California is livid and vowed to get to the bottom of the issue.. saying that whoever hacked the system belongs in prison. Well it wasnt a hacker... almost everyone is agreed on that now, but did this senator say anything about the NSA leaks to the NYT? Meanwhile her fellow senator along with a senior senator from IL is floating the idea that the government decides who is and is not a journalist. Which will jibe nicely with a House member from California who wants to bail out newspapers with taxpayer money. All newspapers, ya think? Now 'Guess the Party'.
