Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Step Down After CRU Hack Fallout

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the pure-indignation dept.

Politics 874

An anonymous reader writes "In the wake of the recent release of thousands of private files and emails after a server of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was hacked, Prof. Phil Jones is stepping down as head of the CRU. Prof. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, is also under inquiry by Penn State University."

cancel ×

874 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Politics (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300698)

The fact that this story is posted under Politics says a lot about what's wrong with the global warming 'debate' IMO.

Re:Politics (2, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300808)

to keep it simple for those who don't get global warming, most people don't understand that icecaps melting/receeding like they have been lately is not at all a normal part of our weather patterns.

I agree though, this should be scientific discussion of how to tackle it not political "lets deal with it later"

Re:Politics (5, Funny)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300854)

That's why we need to act NOW to return the glaciers to the same state they were in 30,000 years ago.

Re:Politics (4, Informative)

kclittle (625128) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301016)

They were all in Wisconsin, IIRC.
-k

Re:Politics (4, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301026)

IIRC.

You, sir, are old!

Re:Politics (1)

kclittle (625128) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301076)

Sigh! Yes, I know, I know...

Re:Politics (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301094)

Actually, it was more of a joke about remembering something from 30k years ago than memory in general... but oh well. :)

Re:Politics (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301188)

And there was a giant lake in Missoula Missouri, which periodically broke-through the glacier/ice dam and flooded Washington State (hence the weirdly-carved landscape).

And before you mark me troll, remember scientists are fallible. They once thought space was filled with "ether" so lightwaves could travel from the sun to the earth. They believed that vehemently for ~100 years, until it was proved light could travel through a vacuum. If they were wrong then (and many many other times), they can certainly be wrong now.

If global warming actually exists, why do the scientists feel it necessary to fudge their numbers? They ought to be able to use the clean data without need for obfuscation, as these climatologists were caught doing.

Re:Politics (4, Funny)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301100)

That's why we need to act NOW to return the glaciers to the same state they were in 30,000 years ago.

The "NOW" has to be pictured with a multi-colored fist raised in anger against the oppressors.

While at it, the humanity also ought to rise against the evil Big Business (as opposite to the beloved "Mom and Pop" shops suffering from Wal-Mart), who contribute to the Continental Drift [thepeoplescube.com] . Because every time a plane takes off on one continent and lands on another, the continents are pulled farther and farther away from the positions they were in before humanity appeared.

Re:Politics (4, Interesting)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300910)

to keep it simple for those who don't get global warming, most people don't understand that icecaps melting/receeding like they have been lately is not at all a normal part of our weather patterns.

Really? One of the biggest fudgings of the data was the removal of an inconvenient half millennium period that was up to 10 degrees warmer than the mean average. What do you think the glaciers did then?

Re:Politics (5, Funny)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300950)

Beach Party?

Re:Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301034)

i cant go to work today, there is a 1000 foot high glacier blocking my front door, and i live in St Louis Mo., (thats what would happen)

Re:Politics (1)

Coriolis (110923) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301074)

Citation needed.

Re:Politics (4, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301230)

What suppression? [nature.com]

Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

Keep it up deniers, Im sure your corporate masters are laughing all the way to the bank while you cry all the way to the grave.

A dark day for science... (5, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301330)

"We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces... I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us - then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." - Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World (Science as a candle in the dark).

Re:Politics (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301354)

It's not about 'suppression' per se, it's about bait and switch.

Look, what's the scientific consensus that we have? Is it about ocean levels rising to cover the earth? Is it about melting glaciers and polar ice caps? Is it about increases in hurricanes? Is it about a six degree increase in temperature?

Not at all. The only consensus we have is that there has been a slight increase in temperature over the last century, and that human activity (specifically CO2) has contributed to that. That's it. There is no consensus on how much CO2 has contributed to it. There is no consensus on how much temperatures will rise in the next century. There is no consensus on what the effect of that rise would be, assuming it does rise. Basically what alarmists have been saying is "AGW is a fact" and everyone agrees. Then they go on and say, "therefore disaster is coming if we don't stop it now" but not everyone agrees with that.

Re:Politics (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300924)

Things change, there are big sweeping cycles of ice advancement and withdrawal. Right now the ice is retreating, if man had gotten to this tech level 13,000 years ago we'd be debating the massive flooding that was going to happen when the glaciers leave the US.

"OMG soon Lake Missoula won't exist! What will we do when the 300 foot waves don't come every 50 odd years!!!"

Re:Politics (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301226)

Probably. We would have avoided the areas that were unlivable, and built our infrastructure around the world as it was at the time. And it would be perfectly rational not to welcome the prospect of farms either being flooded or turning to desert, while sea ports are buried under water, and the gradual changes in variables that could make life more difficult for the plants and animals we depend upon.

It's not that the world in its current state is perfect. It's just that it works for us, right now. So I would rather not risk everything, in return for cheap transportation.

Re:Politics (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300980)

is not at all a normal part of our weather patterns.

Few people argue that, IMO. The thing people tend to argue about is just how long "our weather patterns" have been taking place. It seems to me that the last 100 years, even if you believe in a rather young earth, is a pretty small, er, chip out of the iceberg of time.

It seems that our weather is significantly different from weather history.

Re:Politics (4, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301164)

to keep it simple for those who don't get global warming, most people don't understand that icecaps melting/receeding like they have been lately is not at all a normal part of our weather patterns.

On the contrary, this is quite normal. Ice caps expand and recede all the time and have been for centuries. As MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen pointed out in WSJ today [wsj.com] , you're discarding a well-established understanding of the history of the planet by making that claim.

Re:Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301286)

to keep it simple for those who don't get global warming, most people don't understand that icecaps melting/receeding like they have been lately is not at all a normal part of our weather patterns.

I agree though, this should be scientific discussion of how to tackle it not political "lets deal with it later"

It seems to me the "politics" of the debate was not "lets deal with it later", but "lets ridicule and censor anyone who disagrees", which is a pretty
unscientific approach to a perceived crisis.

Re:Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301326)

Not normal? Why has it happened all throughout the holocene period then? You have warming cycles where glaciers receeds or cold cycles where they grow.
Do you by the way know that the Antarctic ice cap has actually increased over the last few decades? You only hear about the small part of Antarctica that is warming/melting, while rest of the icecap is completely ignored. The current warming could also be explained by the unusual high sun activity that we have been having over the last decades which also happens to coincidence with the warming.
The sun has been more active on average than it has been in thousands of years until the recent extended minimum that started a few years ago.

Re:Politics (4, Insightful)

mveloso (325617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300942)

The above comment shows a complete lack of understanding of how "Science" fits into reality.

Science: eating fatty food is bad for you
Public: f*ck off

Science: oh, some fatty foods are good
Public: f*ck off

Science: oh, some fatty foods are bad, some are good, depending on you
Public: f*ck off

Re:Politics (4, Insightful)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301106)

You forgot government intervention :

Science: eating fatty food is bad for you
Government: we outlaw them all

Science: oh, some fatty foods are good
Government: we outlaw all other food !

Science: oh, some fatty foods are bad, some are good, depending on you
Government: okay, seriously ... everybody alive is breaking the law. How could this possibly happen ? People simply have no respect for the laws anymore.

Science: ...
Government: obviously the solution is more laws !

Re:Politics (1, Troll)

mshmgi (710435) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301214)

I'll probably get called a nazi for saying this ... but it should really have been filed under "Religion", as well.

Don't turn AGW into creation "science" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30300754)

Your cause may be correct, but your methods damage all of science as well as your cause.

True science should not hide data or pick data to support predefined conclusions. And dissenting papers with proper methodologies should never be suppressed. This is the only way to do science right.

Re:Don't turn AGW into creation "science" (0, Funny)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300952)

Funny how the ones who bemoan the science behind global warming are most likely the ones who believe in creation "science". Does God not believe that the earth is warming up?

Re:Don't turn AGW into creation "science" (2, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301020)

Funny how people doing "Global Warming" research keep getting bigger and bigger grants with the more hysteria they pump into their findings.

Yeah unlike Exxon shills who never get a cent (3, Insightful)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301070)

After all Exxon is so broke...

Re:Don't turn AGW into creation "science" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301058)

Do you? I guess you haven't been following this story too closely.

Re:Don't turn AGW into creation "science" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301410)

Funny how the ones who bemoan the science behind global warming are most likely the ones who believe in creation "science". Does God not believe that the earth is warming up?

Wow, you make a statement of fact, with no actual facts involved whatsoever, and then insult the conclusion you made. I do believe that's what's called a 'straw man'. Can I try? "You are, from your tone, most likely a child molester and coke fiend. What, you don't have enough energy to molest all the children you want to molest without the coke?"

The science behind global warming, at least certain parts of it, is complete bullshit. There's a reason people call the pushing of AGW a religion.

The science behind creationism, at least certain parts of it, is complete bullshit. There's a reason people call the pushing of creationism a religion.

Calling people who are skeptical of a rather large claim 'deniers' and claiming they are just in the pockets of big oil, and now saying that they must be creationist wack jobs... none of those endear me to your point of view.

Re:Don't turn AGW into creation "science" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301038)

Re:Don't turn AGW into creation "science" (5, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301276)

With apologies to myself. [slashdot.org]

GOOFUS has a PhD.
GALLANT has a PhD in a field unrelated to his research.

GOOFUS gets little respect as a scientist outside the scientific community.
GALLANT gets little respect as a scientist inside the scientific community.

GOOFUS drives a beat-up old car.
GALLANT drives a BMW unless his chauffeur is driving.

GOOFUS wears street clothes to work, maybe a lab suit on occasion.
GALLANT wears three piece suits at all times.

GOOFUS is employed by a "university", a "hospital", or a "laboratory".
GALLANT is employed by a "Coalition", an "Institute", an "Association", a "Foundation", a "Council", or a "White House".

GOOFUS earns $30000 per year unless they cut his funding.
GALLANT earns $200000 per year but makes his real money from speaking fees.

GOOFUS lives anywhere in the country.
GALLANT lives in a wealthy area near Washington DC, but may have additional homes elsewhere.

GOOFUS may sometimes be filmed standing in front of big melting icebergs.
GALLANT may be filmed sitting in front of a bookcase or standing behind a podium at a $2000 per plate fundraiser, although there may be ice melting in his drink.

GOOFUS is a dues-paying member of several scientific grassroots organizations.
GALLANT is on the payroll of several scientific astroturf organizations.

GOOFUS gets summoned for jury duty but is never picked as a juror.
GALLANT claims "the jury is still out" on evolution or global warming, since he considers himself to be on the jury.

GOOFUS maintains the world is five billion years old.
GALLANT isn't really saying, but creationists distribute his pamphlets all the time.

GOOFUS claims the world is warming as a direct result of human activity.
GALLANT either claims that climate change doesn't exist, or if it does, that humans have nothing to do with it.

GOOFUS and his graduate students do the dirty work of collecting raw data and looking for conclusions to be drawn from it.
GALLANT does the dirty work of discrediting GOOFUS by manipulating his data in Excel with statistically invalid techniques.

GOOFUS writes scientific papers and grant proposals.
GALLANT writes the nation's environmental legislation and a column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

GOOFUS draws scientific conclusions from the data he collects that usually come out in agreement with the scientific consensus.
GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.

GOOFUS is heavily trained to be a skeptic and to treat information from all sources with a skeptical mind.
GALLANT is heavily marketed as a skeptic but reserves his skepticism for GOOFUS.

GOOFUS isn't paid much attention by the press since his opinions are commonplace among scientists.
GALLANT holds maverick opinions for a scientist which keeps him busy running from one balanced talk show to the next.

GOOFUS has no PR skills.
GALLANT leverages his PR experience all the time, although he has access to paid PR staff.

GOOFUS claims the sky is falling and we have to take painful steps to reduce CO2 emissions now.
GALLANT claims the free market will take care of it and recommends solving the problem by conning Zimbabwe out of their pollution credits.

GOOFUS advises his kids not to go into science.
GALLANT advises the president.

Re:Don't turn AGW into creation "science" (4, Insightful)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301350)

A big problem is that most people have grave misconceptions about what science is. Even those who think they understand it, often fail to remember the truth behind the scientific method. Science is not the search for truth. In fact, it is pretty much the opposite. Science is the search for what isn't true.

The truth is invisible, so we do the next best thing. We look at everything else, and notice what isn't there as possibly being the truth. Einstein's real feat of progress wasn't that he came up with the theory of relativity. What really advanced science was that he pinpointed a weakness in the previously accepted theory of gravity.

The problem is that most people don't like to find out that what they know is wrong. And that is a prerequisite to conducting science. Which is why it is so difficult to conduct. You have to suppress your natural instincts of control and try to let your instincts of curiosity guide you instead.

Hockey guy? (4, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300758)

Prof. Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist is also under inquiry by Penn State University

Mann? Is he the same guy who said global temperature will go up exponentially like a hockey stick unless we cap and trade right now?

Re:Hockey guy? (1)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300960)

You're in the right ball park, but (a) Mann wasn't making a prediction. He was making a temperature reconstruction -- a measurement of things that have already happened; and (b) it wasn't exponential, it a more-or-less linear increase. See this [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Hockey guy? (2, Informative)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300984)

That's the guy. At the time, Mann refused to release his data and refused to release the methodology behind the creation of the graph. Years later it turned out if you use Gaussian noise for your temperature input you get a graph with the same hockey stick shape.

Re:Hockey guy? (2, Informative)

Coriolis (110923) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301210)

Lie. [realclimate.org]

Re:Hockey guy? (5, Informative)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301040)

Right. Same guy. Random number input into his program produced a hockey stick. I downloaded the 61MB zip file and have read most of the emails. Those are damaging in terms of exposing several issues:

1. They manipulated the peer-review process and controlled it to the point of changing what peer-review meant, freezing out contrary authors, reviewing each others' work, getting editors fired, etc. There's a lot of that kind of manipulation revealed.

2. They colluded to avoid the FOIA and deleted emails and threatened to delete data before they would release it under FOIA. This is illegal.

3. They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.' I don't have a problem with 'trick' being used. No big deal, but 'hide the decline'? Not good.

4. They would manipulate the data by simply not adding it, closing a run on an increase, when the subsequent data showed a decline. They seem dismayed that the last ten years shows an overall redction in temperature, at one point calling it a travesty and suggesting the data must be wrong.

5. Because there were no thermometers 2000 years ago, they use 'proxies' such as tree rings, ice core samples, etc. However, tree ring growth can be caused by wetness and other issues, not just temperature. In ine case they 'proved; warming based on 12 trees in Siberia. When hey went back and measured many more trees, the increase disappeared.

But the more damning evidence is in the programs themselves, including REM statements where 'hide the decline' is found numerous times, data is manually manipulated, and the programs would throw an error and keep on running.

The code, written primarily in FORTAN and IDL, is a mess--not professional. The datasets are often missing or in poor shape. There's one 'Harry Read me' text file where poor Harry is trying to make sense of the code, over several years, and points out many of the flaws.

So what we've got here is email and program code evidence of manipulation, very poor data, and very poor programming.

The thing is, there are only 4 datasets in the world, two terrestrial and two satellite. There are serious problms with both terrestrial data sets. NOAA's, for example, has manually 'adjusted' data over the years as much as 500%! In other words, the observed degree difference was .1 degree C and the 'adjustment' was +.5 degrees C. You'd think the satellite data asets would be more accurate, however, they were 'calibrated' on the 'adjusted' terrestrial data sets.

Remember Gore's CO2 graph? Probably a 95% correlation between CO2 and temperature, which he presented as proof that CO2 CAUSES global warming. Except that the CO2 increased 800 years AFTER the warming trend. In other words, warming CAUSED CO2 increases, the opposite of what he implied.

Re:Hockey guy? (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301272)

But the more damning evidence is in the programs themselves, including REM statements where 'hide the decline' is found numerous times, data is manually manipulated

Wait, are you talking about the SOURCE CODE that these researchers wrote for their climate model simulations?

If so how did you get to look at the source code?

Re:Hockey guy? (1)

choconutdancer (576542) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301362)

The source code was part of the data that was leaked.

Re:Hockey guy? (1)

choconutdancer (576542) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301304)

Excellent synopsis.

Re:Hockey guy? (1)

ImOnlySleeping (1135393) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301048)

No, he's the guy that showed that temperature has already gone up exponentially.

Ha! That'll show them hippies! (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300804)

Too fucking right! Those big money scientists are faking the whole global warming thing so they can rake in the big bucks. I'm on to their game. Where did the glaciers go? Hmm, maybe you should ask the scientists! They were the last ones seen with them. Bet they've got 'em hidden somewhere just waiting to cash in, same place they put the ice caps.

Besides, even if the climate is changing, it's changed in the past! We had the little ice age, little richard, little italy, and we're doing fine now. If it's a natural change, why should it bother us? The saharah used to be grassland and now it's a desert. That's not hurting America none and it was long before we started burning fossil fuels. If global warming is happening and it isn't man-made, then there's absolutely no reason to do anything about it or even study it. And I still maintain that it's a plot by big science to fleece hard-working, god-fearing, reality-tv-watching American men and women.

Re:Ha! That'll show them hippies! (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300948)

I know there are lots of whackjobs who are conviced that GW is a worthless topic, or that the scientists are all on someone's payroll, or that GW science is some kind of master plan to give a certain political party power (and that power will just evaporate if they lose the next election? I've never understood those kinds of consiracy theories). That being said, the issue that I have is more along the lines of scientists trying to "do what's right" to protect the planet (meaning it's not about science anymore for some of them, it's about protecting the planet).

At best, that attitude leads to behaviors like celebrating the death of someone who disagrees with you; at worst it leads to falsifying data to ensure that world sees things the same way you do. We know, for a fact, that the former has happened; the question to me is, how far towards the latter end of the spectrum is their behaviour? Release the raw data and let everyone take a look at it, until then I'll always have my doubts as to what is really going on.

Re:Ha! That'll show them hippies! (2, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301050)

"or that the scientists are all on someone's payroll"

Umm, yes. They are.

Re:Ha! That'll show them hippies! (1)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301098)

until then I'll always have my doubts as to what is really going on

and even after that, I imagine.

unless you intend to personally fact-check every data point (make your own ice-cores, etc) and then create your own models from their data, how can you be sure?

Honestly, I can't see how getting their hands on this data will mollify skeptics.

Re:Ha! That'll show them hippies! (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301306)

We know, for a fact, that the former has happened; the question to me is, how far towards the latter end of the spectrum is their behaviour? Release the raw data and let everyone take a look at it, until then I'll always have my doubts as to what is really going on.

Sadly, they don't have the raw data [timesonline.co.uk] . They threw it away. Worse, they probably have threw it away much more recently than they originally stated [strata-sphere.com] .

We'll never see it because they've deliberately destroyed it.

Based on my reading of the e-mails, which are available on Wikileaks for your own inspection, combined with this more recent information about the destruction of the raw data, I'd have to say they are very far towards that latter end of the spectrum.

Re:Ha! That'll show them hippies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301412)

Release the raw data and let everyone take a look at it, until then I'll always have my doubts as to what is really going on.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ is a collection of a variety of raw data, partially processed data and models. It is from realclimate, which is run by scientists who definitely believe in AGW but it's still some of the raw data that everyone keeps asking about.

Re:Ha! That'll show them hippies! (4, Informative)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301146)

Too fucking right! Those big money scientists are faking the whole global warming thing so they can rake in the big bucks.

Phil Jones, the man who just stepped down has received $22.6 million in grants since 1990. [iceagenow.com]

Research has shown [azocleantech.com] that when the Sahara was grassland it was due to a warmer global climate (including more CO2 in the atmosphere).

You're reaction is hilarious because you refuse to look at any facts or allegations. These e-mails show that only a few scientists were corrupt, but they happened to be the ones most influencing policy at the IPCC. The rest of the scientists just flock to grant money and worry about peer pressure.

This in itself has become a major scandal, [telegraph.co.uk] not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

Re:Ha! That'll show them hippies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301170)

while i believe we can not change the direction the global climate goes i do think we humans should try to keep a clean environment: http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/ [chinahush.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw [youtube.com]

Re:Ha! That'll show them hippies! (2, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301238)

You jest, but this guy was the recipient (or co-recipient) of $19 million worth of research grants in the last few years. ExxonMobile spends $7million or so a year to various organizations, but the european commission's most recent appropriation is near $3 billion for climate research. California is spending $600 million for its climate initiative.

There is a lot of big money floating around this thing.

Science (4, Insightful)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300818)

Science is not done by consensus. Science is done by showing your work so that others can see it and confirm that your data and methods make sense... sort of like the Open Source process. Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.

Re:Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30300922)

If you think it's done by consensus, I suggest you find something in medicine, physics, or anything else and try to convince the Old Guard to give you the time of day

Re:Science (5, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301028)

You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science. No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm. Simple selfish interest.

Re:Science (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301236)

You act as if the alarmists have nothing to gain from manipulating the science. No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in securing research grants that "prove" a link between CO2 and warming will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does no harm. Simple selfish interest.

Re:Science (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301268)

Except that if they do they've just bought themselves a one way ticket to prison if they're convicted of fraud. The truth will come out either way it's just a matter of time.

climate change groomer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301328)

interesting that you use the term "deniers", so lumping those who disagree with you in with holocaust deniers. But be careful with these ad hominim attacks, they can rebound my climate change grooming friend.

Re:Science (3, Interesting)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301414)

You act as if the deniers have nothing to gain from ignoring the science. No matter what the science says, everyone that has a stake in industries that produce large amounts of CO2 will tend to fight tooth and nail against anyone claiming that CO2 does any harm. Simple selfish interest.

It's the energy companies fighting for cap and trade. Demand goes up while they aren't allowed to supply more, which makes prices rise without them having to add any more supply.

Jones, who is stepping down had received over $22.6 million in grants since 1990.

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is the top shareholder of Dutch Shell Oil (how much so is a state secret) and is also the founder of the WWF. She is also an honorary member of the Club of Rome, which has pushed global warming as a way to scare people into world governance, funded by carbon taxes (see: First global revolution).

All of the top beaurocrats pushing global warming (al gore, maurice strong, etc...) are heavily invested in carbon trading exchanges.

I have yet to see the "deniers" be as heavily involved in money making schemes as the "alarmists."

Re:Science (1)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301200)

I followed you up to this point:

> Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.

Those, as you called them, "warmers" are actually scientists publishing in peer reviewed journals. Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication, no new facts concerning data and/or methods have been unveiled, only adding further to the list of ad hominem attacks.

Concerning the effect of assumed counter-measurements against climate change, I am astonished, that you can claim to know the economical impact, as at least to my knowledge, economic models are several orders less reliable than climate models, as recent events may indicate.

Care to share your insight, which seems to exceed that of the tree huggers at McKinsey's?

Who should I trust more ... (0, Flamebait)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301228)

On one hand, we have dozens of national academies of science, tens of thousands of scientists, a handful of whom might or might not have embellished their results. And that is very bad indeed, although I could point out that Mendel among others is believed to have done the same thing about his peas, and we all know how wrong that turned out to be.

On the other hand we have the most evil people on earth, from the fat Exxon types raking in dozens of billions of dollars of revenue, or the mountain top removal coal mining asswipes raping the WV landscape when they're not too busy giving blowjobs to creationist gay-bashing whore-fucking war-mongering GOP congresscritters, and the conveniently stupid born again, young earther, racist ignorant nationalist fucktards that is their constituency.

Yeah, who am I going to fucking trust.

Climategate? Bah!!! (4, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300858)

I prefer the term Warmaquiddick.

What's worse than the appearance of impropriety? (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300894)

Impropriety.

Fraud (1, Flamebait)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300934)

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that Jones, Mann, et al have engauged in FRAUD? Not just any kind of fraud, but a massive fraud that makes Bernie Madoff's [wikipedia.org] scam look tiny. Just like Bernie, climate "scientists" like Jones and Mann have said their science doesn't need to be questioned because of their renowned reputations. Actually, they may be worse than Madoff, because AFAIK, Madoff didn't go out of his way to smear critics.

Jones, Mann, and their fellow science-nazis should be cooling their heels in jail cells right next to Madoff.

Re:Fraud (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301010)

Jones, Mann, and their fellow science-nazis should be cooling their heels in jail cells right next to Madoff.

If they've been collecting government grants while falsifying data, they just might.

Re:Fraud (3, Insightful)

chillax137 (612431) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301052)

FALSE. All accusations of fraud have been addressed by the scientists in question, as well as outside sources. There is a reason this hasn't been getting much mainstream media coverage. For everyone's information: data was not manipulated, dissenting papers were not suppressed
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html [nature.com]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/ [realclimate.org]

Re:Fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301108)

It is possible to explain bullshit with more bullshit.

Re:Fraud (5, Informative)

HebrewToYou (644998) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301196)

Citing realclimate.org doesn't help your cause. Several contributors to that site have been implicated in the leaked emails.

With regards to the content of your post, the data was most certainly manipulated. Have you not taken the time to discover the coding travesty documented in the HARRY_READ_ME file that was leaked along with the emails? Here [di2.nu] are a couple good links [di2.nu] to start with.

Re:Fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301402)

some cock gobbler shill modded him up,

nature and realclimate are both controlled by the illuminiati

Re:Fraud (4, Informative)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301280)

Thank you for the links, best article I've read all day.

A couple of quotes from the Nature editorial for the TL;DR crowd:

A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

(Emphasis mine).

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

There is far, far too much politics in science. I don't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down, but I'm inclined to believe (after reading the Nature editorial) that the reasons were almost entirely political.

Re:Fraud (1)

STRICQ (634164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301322)

Isn't it true that the maintainers of those two web sites are also implicated in the emails that were leaked? How can we trust anything they say when they are a part of the fraud?

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301352)

So the perpetrators of the fraud assure us there is no fraud? That's a relief!

who do you think controls realclimate.org?

stay in school kids!

Re:Fraud (2, Informative)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301394)

I love how when the "science" behind the global warming religion is shown to be a complete hoax, you warmers just point back to the ALREADY SHOWN TO BE FAKE data as some kind of "proof" that AGW is real.

(Realclimate? Seriously? Realclimate is the freaking Vatican of the Church of Global Warming. We're supposed to take ANYTHING they write seriously? HA!)

Get over it. AGW is a hoax, always has been. Your religion is a lie that was designed to allow AGW scientists to feather their nests with multi-million dollar grants and for their fellow travelers on the political far left to use as a tool to bludgeon free societies into socialist servitude. It's well past time to accept it like a big boy and move on.

Anyone who still believes the AGW crap is a brainwashed moron.

Re:Fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301110)

This lays it out very clearly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE

Not fraud. Why is it so hard to believe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301174)

Not fraud. Why is it so hard to believe?

It isn't fraud since there's no evidence of fraud. With Bernie, there was a huge lump of money gone AWOL. Yet the independent data still shows the same effect as this supposedly contaminated one.

So where's the evidence of fraud?

It's like accusing a bank manager of robbing the bank but no money has gone missing.

The denialists are out in force today (2, Insightful)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301290)

Madoff? The guy who stole billions of dollar? Versus a guy who might, at worst, have infringed on a Freedom of Information act? What else is fraud? The "Nature trick" thing? That's such bullshit it's ridiculous.

Deniers on my Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30300968)

It's more common than you think.

Stepping aside =/= stepping down (1)

JackCroww (733340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300970)

The man is still going to be at the Center, which means he'll use his "pull" to keep his fingers in the pie, kinda like Putin isn't President of Russia anymore.

Re:Stepping aside =/= stepping down (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301044)

I doubt that. Reputation is everything for scientists, and the revelation of his misdeeds has blackened his reputation forever. Far from having "pull", he's going to be radioactive - nobody will want to work with him.

Re:Stepping aside =/= stepping down (1)

JackCroww (733340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301158)

Outside of CRU, very likely. But as director of the center, he isn't going to willing completely surrender/delegate all his authority. Internal employees' paychecks will most likely still be subject to his authority, at least for a while. Given his display of ethics via the emails released, do you think he'll not use that power in internal debates/conflicts? And I don't mean that paycheck authority is the only thing that he might abuse. Project funding, grant application approval, etc.

The only path to Hadley CRU ever gaining respectability starts with Phil Jones' complete exit.

Great, just great (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30300978)

So now we have hard working scientists who have their lives disrupted over this idiocy. This whole matter has been completely overblown. So people ranted and sent intemperate emails on a private mailing list? Wow. Newsflash: Scientists are not vulcans. The only thing that's even more shocking is the email where using a standard statistical technique is referred to as a "trick." If this is the grand conspiracy, it has to be the most pathetic grand conspiracy I've ever seen. A private mailing list of a few scientists that was mostly used productively and with an occasional whiny email or rant simply isn't that big a deal. People backbiting and such is really common. Welcome to academia.

Re:Great, just great (2, Informative)

RobNich (85522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301134)

Intemperate messages? The messages include instructions to delete emails regarding specific topics (which apparently were deleted), adding "garbage" data to study data analysis to cover up the lack of global temperature increase, and discussion of how to suppress journals that would dare to publish works that disprove anthropogenic global warming. There's more, but that's plenty for me! You have to be completely up the anus of this scam to think that this is completely overblown. Like the New York Times. Here's a newsflash: you've been LIED TO. Or, if that doesn't fit, YOU'RE LYING.

Re:Great, just great (4, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301254)

Mostly out of context. Have you never said anything nasty about someone and then asked someoen to delete it? Right. And claims that garbage data was added is simply false. Discussion about "suppressing" journals never occurred either. What was discussed was a single person suggesting that maybe not send papers to certain journals and not citing papers from those journals. Again, you are going to need to do a lot better than that. Capitalizing things doesn't make an argument any more valid. But nice try.

Finally (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30300982)

Glad to see the cat finally coming out of the bag.
The reason this is under "Politics" is because, like it or not, this has become a political debate.
The science was thrown out long ago, as the emails prove.

The Earth undergoes cycles of climate change. We(humans) have a minimal affect on it.
We were not around for any of the previous hot or cold times, and they will continue to happen long after we're gone. To deny this is to deny historical fact.

The debate is indeed over. The proof is written in the stone, or the ice, as it were. ;-)

Not stepping down. Standing aside (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301004)

Not stepping down. Standing aside. As in "I won't be the one in charge whilst this investigation is going on, just like a judge would recuse himself if he had even the appearance of interest in the case".

TEMPORARILY (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301006)

Even the WSJ article they linked to included the key word "temporarily". They relegated it to the subtitle, but it was there. (The WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, also owner of Fox News, can be assumed to to take the climate-denialist position on everything.)

Temporarily stepping down is very different from an admission of guilt. It can be a way of allowing work to go on while investigations are under way, when a controversial figure attracts so much attention as to detract from the real work.

Maybe there are some real failures here, for which the guy does deserve to be removed from his job, but so much of what I've read about the hacked emails is hyped and deliberately misinterpreted that I'm unimpressed by this incident.

Re:TEMPORARILY (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301084)

"Temporarily" is also a method for large organizations to fire someone without taking the PR hit when the scandal is hot news. I'd be willing to bet money he steps down permanently in a month or two.

Re:TEMPORARILY (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301316)

(The WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, also owner of Fox News, can be assumed to to take the climate-denialist position on everything.)

I guess you never watch the Simpsons, Family Guy or any of the other shows on Murdoch's other "channel" (also called Fox) which routinely make fun of everything right of center, including Fox News.

Yeah, what I thought. Rupert Murdoch is evil, because of Fox News, but Rupert Murdoch is cool because of Fox.

Let me know when your head starts to explode.

Yahoo! (2, Funny)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301030)

Finally I can stop putting up the pretense like I care and quit bothering with all this reducing, reusing, recycling nonsense!!

As IF we'd ever be able to pollute the planet in any significant way or run out of resources.

Scientist jerks like these really get my goatse.

Scientific method... (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301042)

So would it be unscientific to say that where there's smoke, there's warming?

"Step down" (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301082)

Are they "spending more time with their families" now?

They were fired.

Re:"Step down" (1)

uncadonna (85026) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301092)

Prof Jones is still a professor. He has temporarily stepped down as head of the Climate Research Unit pending the investigation.

What surprises me about all of this (1, Interesting)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301234)

What surprises me about all of this isn't that that the Climategate scientists were caught apparently fudging facts and massaging data when said facts and data did not support what they wanted the conclusion to be, or that they were caught definitely trying to muzzle any scientists who questioned them. What surprises me most is that people are surprised by this. What surprises me second most is that scientists don't get caught doing this more often.

Why is that?

Well, we (well, not I, but many people) have this view of scientists as pure, balanced, objective, high-minded individuals in pursuit of pure scientific truth, Reality is that scientists, while highly trained and educated, are human just like everyone else. They can be vain, egotistical, self-serving, corrupt, and dishonest, just like everyone else. They want to be right, just like everyone else. They don't want to be publicly proven wrong, just like everyone else. And some of them will do anything to not be proven wrong, including lie and forge data and results. I'm not saying the scientists in question here did (or didn't) do that, just that some scientists have done things like that in the past and will do so again in the future. They're human, like anybody else.

For those of you old enough to remember when the prevailing theory of dinosaur extinction was failure to adapt to changing environmental conditions and competition from the rise of mammals, you may also recall that the first scientists to advance the mass-extinction/asteroid impact theory had scorn heaped upon them for years by the scientific establishment. However, they stuck to their guns and that theory is now accepted as fact and anyone advancing the previous theory would be the scorn magnet.

This is a case that certainly bears investigation, to find out whether or not real fraud has really occurred, and why (and how successful they were) they are trying so hard to prevent even the publication by other highly qualified researchers of any opposing viewpoint. After all, if the AGW theorists are correct and their methodology sound, it should stand up to public scrutiny and challenge, so why be afraid of challengers. If the AGW group is right, the challengers will be proven wrong.

That said, I think that reasonable efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels and produce less pollution are good in and of themselves, whether global warming is caused by humans (or even happening) or not. If you lived in southern California in the seventies, you'll recall how bad the smog was in those days. There were days when the smog was so bad that classes at my middle school in San Diego were canceled and students were sent home early. Today, there are far more cars on the SoCal freeways, but the air is much better, thanks to more fuel-efficient vehicles and good pollution control equipment. AFAIK school doesn't get canceled due to smog anymore, not even in LA. If we all had the kind of cars now that we had then, the smog would be so bad that SoCal (and the Bay area) would both be unlivable. Sustainable practices are good, independent of global warming.

Climate Hack (0, Troll)

hackus (159037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301340)

I really HOPE nobody is surprised about this.

Anyone who is researching our planets climate record and current climate HONESTLY, knew this whole carbon tax thing was a money making scam.

What does that tell you by the way how deep this corruption runs when Al Gore gets a NOBEL prize for the "research" these people did?

Actually, if you follow the money, the people behind this could care less about our planet, or anyone on it. What they are more concerned about are:

1) How can I make trillions of dollars a year?

2) How can I control more people?

The first step is to get a world body that taxes all nations and peoples on the earth as a precedent. Since these shadowy figures behind all of this know that they could never outright tax everyone without a huge political hurdle, they are using the guise of the environmental movement to facilitate this tax so people think it is saving trees, snails and whales.

Yeah, sure it is.

You people who believe in this stuff reading this post are stupid sheepeople.

Once the system is setup, more taxes can then easily be added and now you have a government fully sustained by taxes that reaches world wide.

That is the real goal.

If they succeed, they will begin with the next part of their agenda's, which I won't get into right here because nobody would believe me....yet....so I will wait till its about to happen.

But if just 10 years ago, I was saying to you that a government body is going to be created that would tax all nations, you would have claimed I had a screw loose.

Well, its on the verge of happening, and once it does happen these very evil people will have the resources of an entire planet to accomplish even more evil.

-Hack

Remember Ike's Warning? (5, Interesting)

whatthef*ck (215929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301368)

Remember Ike's warning about the Military-Industrial Complex? In that same speech, he also said:

the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

(http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

Think about that the next time someone tries to discredit research because it was funded by an oil company.

Ike's warning has been borne out. Public policy has become the captive of a scientific-technological elite, who, unsurprisingly, are a bunch of dishonest frauds.

OMG! Climate scientists are people (0, Troll)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301370)

They hold grudges! They take personal stake in their projects! They make up data!

Say it aint so!

I always assumed that these men who study the long-term variations of the planet's climate were appointed by an infallible creator as impartial arbiters of truth!

But now I find out that they are just regular people! Their only qualifications are going to grad school, getting PhDs, and publishing papers that impressed their peers!

And to top it all off, they don't have respect for other scientists whose theories contradict their own! They complain that these conflicting theories are poorly constructed, easily refuted, and written explicitly for shock value. As though it matters.

I know that in America, every piece of information should be treated equally! Whether it's backed up by actual evidence, or not. It's not up to "experts" who have spent their lives studying these things to decide what's the truth. It's up to each and every person's gut!

Preponderance of evidence? I don't even know what that word means. But I do know that my momma didn't raise no fool. Going forwards, I am not going to trust any scientists ever again!

Chuck Norris says... (1, Interesting)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301398)

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/12/chuck-norris-takes-obamas-climate-one-world-order [motherjones.com]

"My big worry, is that we as a nation, if we start having to be obligated to other countries ... Like, in this conference they're going to try to take our money and send it to third world countries, because of since we spend so much oil, and these other countries have suffered, then we're going to give our money to these third world countries."

I don't know about you, but I found this comment to be hilarious in its absurdity!

1) Biggest objector to a Climate Change accord: USA.
2) The reason? Because the big polluters out there like China and India will not contribute.
3) The reason? Because the USA et al. have been doing it for decades and as a result are very developed (wealthy). China and India figure it is their turn, why should their development be held back, its not fair.
4) The impasse?: Every accord that has been done basically severally cuts emissions in developed countries, while barely touching those of 3rd world or developing countries.
5) The result?: Developed countries will have tighter restrictions likely leading in a decline of their economy, while developing countries will continue to grow and will have boom economies.

So in one sense Chuck Norris is correct, on some level there will be a redistribution of wealth from rich developed countries to poor developing countries. However in another sense he is an idiot, as the USA currently OWES China something in the tune of 800 Billion dollars and growing anyway.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>