Global Warming Science, or Pure Advocacy? Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked

Discussion in 'World Events' started by madanthonywayne, Nov 24, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    The Hadley Climate Research Unit was hacked and the data and emails released by the hackers reveal evidence of world renowned climate scientists manipulating data, withholding information, suppressing information, and excluding scientists with opposing viewpoints.
    Thousands of sensitive documents and emails including some climate change docs dating back a decade ago that indicate scientists may be overstating the case for global warming by manipulating data were stolen from Britain's Hadley Climate Research Unit by Russian hackers, according to many news reports and blogs.

    Thousands of sensitive documents and emails including some climate change docs dating back a decade ago that indicate scientists may be overstating the case for global warming by manipulating data were stolen from Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit by Russian hackers, according to many news reports and blogs.

    The release of 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents is fueling the debate between scientists who believe man is responsible for global warming and skeptics of climate-change findings, calling into question the validity of many climate-change reports.

    However, the head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Britain, Phil Jones, told The Australian that he cannot confirm which of the emails are authentic and which are fakes.

    Some old emails from scientists made references to different ways of evaluating the climate data, according to a Wall Street Journal blog.

    Initial reviews of the leaked files show that world-renowned climate scientists may be manipulating computer climate modeling data and research reports to support the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are causing global warming, reports Examiner.com.

    The leaked documents give credence to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who have argued that the scientific consensus was not as strong as the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summaries indicated and that climate researchers ostracized other scientists who presented different findings, reports The Australian.

    The emails include discussions of efforts to make sure that reports from the IPCC included their own views and excluded others, and their refusal to make their data available to scientists with opposing views, reports the Wall Street Journal.

    However, one of the scientists whose emails were released is upset about the selective use of the emails and said they’ve been taken out of context, reports ABC News. Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado, and a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, believes the leaks may be aimed at undermining Copenhagen climate talks, according to the article.

    If the emails are genuine, they show “dubious practices” such as manipulating data, suppressing evidence, contemplating violence against prominent climate skeptic scientists, withholding data on the pre-industrial Medieval Warm Period, and plotting to keep dissenting scientists out of the peer review process, according to a Telegraph blog.

    The emails also show that some scientists had private doubts about global warming, reports the Telegraph.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Nothing released so far shows any of that crap.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Well, I've not read the emails, but to quote the article quoted in the OP again:
    If the emails are genuine, they show “dubious practices” such as manipulating data, suppressing evidence, contemplating violence against prominent climate skeptic scientists, withholding data on the pre-industrial Medieval Warm Period, and plotting to keep dissenting scientists out of the peer review process, according to a Telegraph blog.​

    That certainly supports my earlier statement. And here's a quote from the Telegraph:

    And here's a direct quote from one of the emails I've just come across:
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Arch_Rival Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    186
    While i guess the researchers are more loose with the language when sending emails, this quote does reveal the scientists manipulating data in a non-objective way. The intention to mislead is there.
     
  8. Arch_Rival Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    186
    And yes i think global warming science is pure advocacy. In my country there are 4-5 year old kids going on tv saying they "want to save the world." What does a 4 year old kid know about climate science? Yet they are made to parrot the idea on national tv.
     
  9. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Well I don't know lets see I live in Canada I have since I was born and I have noticed a marked increase in temperature over the years. i know this by the amount of snowfall I have seen. I remember that it used to start snowing in October at the place were I lived and no it was not in a northern area it was actually about 3 hrs southwest of Toronto which for those that do not know is the Capital of Ontario. Mind you most of the time the snow would be gone shortly after it arrived but it did indeed snow and accumulate a considerable amount. Over the years the time for snow keeps getting Latter and Latter now we are extremely lucky to get snow in December just today I came to work wearing only a very thin jacket. I do not expect snow until at least January if we get some before then I will be shocked as it is so very very warm right now. So getting to the point yes I feel global warming is indeed real and yes it will become a problem I feel in a very short while. Will it destroy the world no I do not think so will it kill off a bunch of people yes I believe it will. But is man the sole cause not likely they are a contributing factor yes but not the cause the cause is the elliptical orbit of our planet that goes in cycles at points in time is gets farther from the sun which makes it cooler and at points it is closer which makes it hotter right now we are in one of the close phases. What will worry me is the distant phase that means a big freeze coming our way will I have to worry about it no do I care about it No why cause I will be dead and dead people just don't care.
     
  10. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    It was not Hadley it was the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center.

    "However, before presenting this timeline, this Examiner is obliged to issue a correction: the phrase "Hadley CRU" is not the true name of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The first person to use that phrase was Anthony Watts, of Watts Up With That. As RealClimate.org and others have noted, Watts is the first person to use the phrase "Hadley Centre" to describe the CRU. This is incorrect; the CRU does not use the word "Hadley" in its name, and the "Hadley Centre" is an entirely separate institution, having no connection with Phil Jones or his team beyond, perhaps, being in sympathy with Jones' stated theories and goals."


    Also, no one knows if it was a hack, an inside job, or if they mistakenly put this file in a download area, as has occurred in the past at this very uni.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Ess...11d21-Who-leaked-the-Hadley-CRU-files-and-why

    ** I am unsure of the status of examiner.com being a top notch news org, but the article does offer clarification of the source of the files. Its not Hadley, its East Anglia.
     
  11. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    More evidence. Here's a quote showing attempts to suppress the release of data and the statement that the global warming "scientist" would destroy the data rather than release it:
    Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"
    And more suppression of data:
    In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
    Data manipulation and suppression:
    Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming
     
  12. Dredd Dredd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    238
    Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked

    This is not new in science; remember Piltdown man.

    Also note that Roger Penrose says much of quantum mechanics and cosmology have wildly incorrect extrapolations.

    Yet science goes on because the few are not the many.

    Some of us are thrown off by the "global" descriptor in global climate change or global warming, forgetting that like politics, all weather is local you know.

    Whether a few scientists fake something or not is neither concluding proof for or against a scientific postulate.

    No, look at all the facts and data, find out yourself, not relying on the scientist but instead on the science.
     
  13. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Scientists have dedicated decades of their life to arrive at conclusions...you expect us all to not "rely on others"?
     
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
  15. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    A nice middle ground conclusion but I don't buy it.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    What's wrong with suppressing your data until you publish?
     
  18. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    and hackers are SOOO trustworthy right? even IF it does show what you suggest mad what makes you think the emails ect wernt tamped with?

    Further more resurch has been releaced very recently which suggests the IGPCC was to concervitive, that the artic will be ice free by 2030 and that sea levels have already risen 5cms

    further more the first ever Nov heat wave has hit melbourne and adelade, unprecedented fire seasons are happerning NOW and the murry river is bone dry.

    Look at it this way, we stop using carbon and move to renuable energy and it turns out not to be as bad as we thought and what happens? Nothing bad and the planet is better off.

    If we do nothing and they turn out to be right then humanity will PROBABLY be one of the species to go extint through stavation, war ect.

    YAY lets go with your view

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Honestly i have to wonder what you have at stake if we do take action? of course your age may come into it, ie YOU wont have to deal with it it but i wonder what you say to your kids and grandkids (if you have them) when you look at them because its THEM you are condeming if your wrong.

    Lastly as one of the scientists from the university of NSWs and who worked on this new report said "if the nay sayers are right then why have everyone of them refused to have there work peer reviewed?"
     
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
  21. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    A valid point. Time will tell.
    Meanwhile in the US many areas were experiencing record cold this year....
    Wasting trillions of dollars and destroying what is left of our manufacturing base is, in my book, something bad. Does this mean I oppose alternative fuels? Of course not. But I do oppose Cap and Trade or severe restrictions on carbon emisions.
    Since we're speaking of hypotheticals, consider the fact that our planet has been in an ice age for 90% of the last million years. Interglacial periods such as the one we are living in now are usually short. What if our carbon output is all that's holding off a new ice age? An ice age would be much worse than a rise of a couple degrees over the next hundred years. So it could be cutting CO2 that wipes out civilization.
    The 16 year difference in age between us is nothing on a geologic time scale.
    Did you read the quotes above? Many of the emails show efforts by pro-global warming scientists to prevent articles not in support of global warming from being published and to keep data that contradicts their views from being seen by anyone but true believers
     
  22. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    mad even IF true you dont think they wouldnt have been caught? Peer reviewers have a long history of dealing with these sorts of frauds, im sure you would be well awear of some of them as they have been consistantly commited by pharmacutical companies in order to keep a drug which hasnt shown in studies to be QUITE as effective as the company wants people to belive. They keep being caught by the peer reviewers so why would you think that if this sort of hoax was being perpitrated that this wouldnt be caught just the same?

    Or dont you surport the whole peer review prossess?

    and lastly how wide spreed a conspiracy do you honestly think it is possable to perpitrate?
     
  23. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Let's not confuse the question of whether man or the sun is causing global warming with the question of whether global warming is happening.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page