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!

Scientific Journal Nature Finds Nothing Notable In CRU Leak

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the nothing-to-see-here-move-along dept.

Earth 736

eldavojohn writes with an update to the CRU email leak story we've been following for the past two weeks. The peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature has published an article saying the emails do not demonstrate any sort of "scientific conspiracy," and that the journal doesn't intend to investigate earlier papers from CRU researchers without "substantive reasons for concern." The article notes, "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." Reader lacaprup points out related news that a global warming skeptic plans to sue NASA under the Freedom of Information Act for failing to deliver climate data and correspondence of their own, which he thinks will be "highly damaging." Meanwhile, a United Nations panel will be conducting its own investigation of the CRU emails.

cancel ×

736 comments

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

Nice try (5, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334664)

The real smoking gun isn't the emails - it's the source code [oneutah.org] .

They keep talking about those emails in the hopes that no one will call them out on the "VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline"s applied liberally to the raw data.

Really take a look at the graphs in the link above. Plot that array yourself if you don't believe it. No amount of handwaving will explain away blatant lying.

Re:Nice try (4, Insightful)

niiler (716140) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334726)

The researchers did not use certain tree ring data post 1960 because it was not properly calibrated to instrumental data. There has been much hoo-hah about this "throwing out" of data when really it is the instrumental data that matters, not the proxy data. If temperature is what you are after, thermometers are the gold standard. Therefore the post 1960 results really aren't in question. Furthermore, many critics of Mann et al. have ignored the fact that this was a single line of data turning a blind eye to the numerous other data sets and proxies that support the same conclusions. I find it disingenuous to claim that all climatology is now in question due to this "trick". I will, however, admit that the researchers should have noted the issues with the tree-ring data in question.

If one completely ignores any of the above data sets (whether they be direct measurements or proxies), there exist many disparate observations of global warming ranging from the rise in sea level which threatens various nations' lands to the melting of the arctic tundra to the loss of glaciation document global warming independently of these scientists' data. All the data seem to indicate is that the warming is happening on a scale that it has not before. By itself, this should indicate that the hockey stick curve is real. But is this warming due to humans?

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) critics seem to espouse ideas such as the solar cycle hypothesis or Milankovich hypothesis rather than admit that humans can change the atmosphere. On the BBC this morning I even heard a listener letter that explained how volcanoes were the cause of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This ignores some of the more obvious ways in which humans can change the atmosphere. This year, the Chinese government limited fossil fuel burning before the Olympics with apparently stunning results. When I was in Beijing for nearly a month 10 years ago, smog was a daily occurance. Even miles outside the city at Badaling (the Great Wall), it was hard to see for more than a mile. Smog is considered to be the third most important greenhouse gas by the IPCC. Evidence that we are changing our own atmosphere by fossil fuel emission is obvious just by looking.

Re:Nice try (5, Insightful)

trickyD1ck (1313117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334748)

"Evidence that we are changing our own atmosphere by fossil fuel emission is obvious just by looking." this nonetheless does not imply that such changes have a nontrivial impact on the climate. in other words, smog!=AGW. i would think this were obvious.

Re:Nice try (3, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334804)

There has been much hoo-hah about this "throwing out" of data when really it is the instrumental data that matters, not the proxy data. If temperature is what you are after, thermometers are the gold standard

You might have a point if the leaked file only demonstrated a single case of data tampering, but it's all over the place. Anyone with a copy of FOI2009.zip and grep can verify this.

Re:Nice try (2, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335032)

grep? grep only works if you know what you're looking for.

Re:Nice try (2, Funny)

DMiax (915735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335102)

$ grep "blatant data tampering" highly_incriminating_file.txt # because conspiracies store their misdeeds in plaintext

Re:Nice try (2, Interesting)

toppavak (943659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334822)

This year, the Chinese government limited fossil fuel burning before the Olympics with apparently stunning results. When I was in Beijing for nearly a month 10 years ago, smog was a daily occurance. Even miles outside the city at Badaling (the Great Wall), it was hard to see for more than a mile. Smog is considered to be the third most important greenhouse gas by the IPCC. Evidence that we are changing our own atmosphere by fossil fuel emission is obvious just by looking.

This kind of trend can be seen on a daily cycle in New Delhi. Overnight, the smog over the city disperses but returns over the course of the day (typically by 11am) only to dissipate again as the city slows down for the night.

Re:Nice try (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30334872)

Nice try. The tree ring data was used as a proxy for temperature. The results of this proxy formula didn't match up with actual temperature readings past 1960, so to make their method look like it had more skill (accuracy) than it did, they simply grafted the actual temperature series to the end of the tree ring proxy temperature series. This is what was meant by "hide the decline".

A real scientist would have investigated why the proxy failed to to reflect actual temperatures in recent times, and might have questioned if the methodology actually applied correctly to any time in the past. Instead, they grafted apples to oranges and then told everyone they had discovered something that they had not.

Very bad science. If this happened in any other field, these clowns would be out of a job.

Re:Nice try (4, Insightful)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334942)

The researchers did not use certain tree ring data post 1960 because it was not properly calibrated to instrumental data. There has been much hoo-hah about this "throwing out" of data when really it is the instrumental data that matters, not the proxy data. If temperature is what you are after, thermometers are the gold standard. Therefore the post 1960 results really aren't in question

Right, so the reasonable inference would be "this proxy can't event match the temperatures we know for sure -- it's no good, throw it out entirely". However, the scientists in question are so attached to their preordained conclusions that they don't even consider this. Instead, they throw out the data they don't like, and keep what matches the conclusion they want, instead of (at least *considering*) re-evaluating the conclusion to begin with.

So they act like the proxy's correct precisely when they have less substantiation, and its failure to match the most solid data is just a problem they need to patch up later -- the so called "divergence problem". It should be called the, "Do we ever consider we might be wrong?" problem.

Re:Nice try (0, Troll)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334992)

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) critics seem to espouse ideas such as the solar cycle hypothesis...

Umm, if Mars has seen ice cap shrinkage why wouldn't Solar Cycles be the most likely cause of our current terrestrial warming (which hasn't happened in the last decade - thus the change of nomenclature to "climate change")?

All the data seem to indicate is that the warming is happening on a scale that it has not before.

O rly? It's believed that the northern U.S. was covered in a 5,000 foot thick ice cap (some time in the last 100k years). It created the 5 Great Lakes. What caused the atmosphere to warm so much as to see that completely disappear? It must have been very dramatic. I wonder, though, concerning the current state of glacial changes, has there been a change in precipitation in the areas that feed those shrinking glaciers?

Also, if Anthropogenic Global Warming were true, why hasn't recorded human history, vis-a-vis, the last 1,000 years or so, shown a consistent increase in global temperatures? It would be very easy to conclude that humans have been burning more wood over the prior year for the duration of their history (beginning prior to the last millennium) and that CO2 would also have been increasing year over year as well. But, there was a mini-ice age in the last millennium. That doesn't compute.

What ALSO doesn't fit with AGW is the fact that the Earth, very much without the help of humans, has waxed and wained in and out of warm and cold periods. WITHOUT HUMANS. Back and forth. Over and over. Explain that. Please.

You should actually go to the link provided in the parent post and see where the damning data manipulation is actually happening.

Re:Nice try (5, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335008)

Wasn't it so inconsiderate of those trees to change the way the respond to temperature?

I wonder why they don't include other tree ring data [wattsupwiththat.com] or the Finnish [worldclimatereport.com] data? Instead, they used bogus [cfact.eu] data.

And "they" continue to hide [wattsupwiththat.com] other data.

Of course I know the standard responses...I'm not a climate scientist so what do I know anything, Nature is "Dr. Jones Peer Reviewed", everyone else is paid by Exxon, blah blah blah.

Fact is that this issue is now beyond science and is being fought in the public forum. Anyone who would have the world cripple itself economically needs to be 150% above board with all their data and methods. No hiding behind anything. Anyone with a reasonable background in science should be able to take their models apart, thoroughly understand what they are doing and why and be able to replicate their work, from the friggen hunk of wood to the final graph. Hire more people to fulfill FOI request if that's what it takes.

If necessary, they should set aside a few months a year to do nothing but assist others in understanding their methods (never mind that if any other scientist had to help others replicate their work, it would be seen as a sign of fraud). Too important and busy to do that? Bullshit. Given what want everyone to do, they have an OBLIGATION to do that.

And lastly...I'm sorry but if the friggin tree ring data is not valid for assessing temperature after 1960, then it is not valid assessing temperature before 1960.

Re:Nice try (1, Troll)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335010)

This ignores some of the more obvious ways in which humans can change the atmosphere.

The point is not, that humans don't change the atmosphere at all. It is that our (anthropogenic) contribution to the change is negligibly small — we also "contribute" to Continental Drift [thepeoplescube.com] ... The cooling of the last 10 years, that so frustrated the CRU alarmists (one of them writes in an e-mail [washingtontimes.com] : "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."), is now explained by the lower Sun activity [nasa.gov] — even when reminding the faithful readers, that "These changes are not enough to reverse global warming". Well, duh, "It is the Sun, stupid". Whatever we do here — and we didn't reduce our emissions (save for those few weeks in Bejing you observed) over the decade — the Sun will trump that many times over.

Oceans rising? Right... There are ancient cities on the sea floor off North Africa. Did Mediterranean rise because the humans were cooking too much 2000 years ago?

Re:Nice try (1)

arcticinfantry (1130171) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335136)

Wrong. It was calibrated, but trended *down*. Trees don't make good thermometers. Your comments about other indicators of "Global Warming" are *not* evidence. They are anecdotes. What people are in a fuss about is whether warming is natural vs. "we're all going to die in the next 100 years.". Try to speak to the *evidence* for catastrophic global warming and not muddy the issue.

Re:Nice try (2, Insightful)

cirby (2599) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335154)

If one completely ignores any of the above data sets (whether they be direct measurements or proxies), there exist many disparate observations of global warming ranging from the rise in sea level which threatens various nations' lands ...which has been either minimal or non-detectable, as opposed to what the AGW fans have been telling us. Not exactly a good point.

to the melting of the arctic tundra ...which can only melt when it's man-caused global warming, instead of the sun-caused version which is probably what's been observed for the last half century?

to the loss of glaciation document global warming independently of these scientists' data.

Except that much of the "glaciation loss" is probably due to lowered precipitation instead of increased temperatures.

Correlation is not causation. Just because the globe got slightly warmer doesn't mean it was CO2-based AGW that did it.

You should also note that if you go back to the beginning of serious AGW science (during the late 1980s), most of their predictions have already been falsified. The globe should be at least a half-degree warmer than observed (check the "Hockey Stick" graph in its earlier incarnations), the oceans should be at least a foot deeper (up to five feet higher today, according to some predictions), and storms should be much, much more severe (they're not). None of these things have happened over the last twenty years, therefore THEY WERE WRONG.

On the other hand, many of the skeptics have been supporting the solar variation side of the theory of global climate change, and (surprise!) it matches up quite nicely to observed temperature changes, including the prediction of the stable/cooling trend in the last ten years.

Re:Nice try (5, Informative)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334796)

The source code is another thing that has been taken completely out of context. For example, the "Very ARTIFICIAL correction" in was computed, but the line where it was applied was commented out. This is clearly a case of someone playing around with the output to explore various effects and scenarios. They did the experiment, then commented it out to removed that effect from the production output. Does anyone really believe that a real attempt at fraud would be blatantly labeled in the code?

Re:Nice try (5, Informative)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334798)

FFS, not this shit again. Frankly, given the number of times this has been pointed out, I can only assume that people still mentioning it are wilfully ignoring anything that contradicts them.

However, one last time. It's commonplace to have multiple versions of analysis code with variations including "artificial" changes. I've done it lots of times, mostly for testing purposes - it's quite useful [1] to know how the output of your analysis depends on variations in the input. Only a small fraction of the code in existence was actually used to process the data "for real". Unless you have some evidence that a) arbitrary modifications were made to published data without explanation in the publication and b) any such modifications were not scientifically justified, please stop with this ridiculous and discredited point.

[1] By which I mean "essential for any non-trivial analysis"

Re:Nice try (5, Informative)

belthize (990217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334840)

If you look at the actual code instead of some blog you'll see the reference to the adjusted value is commented out and never used in the plotting call.

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
    2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
; ;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow ;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20
;
filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow
oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=21
;
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
plot,[0,1],/nodata,xstyle=4,ystyle=4

        Without revision control one can't say for certain but there's no evidence any adjusted data made it into a paper. There's only evidence that a single piece of code from the thousands of modeling sims had at one time an adjustment that was commented out.

Re:Nice try (-1, Offtopic)

fredjh (1602699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334850)

It's like watching Christians defend their belief in Jesus.

Go ahead, troll me. I expect nothing less from religious fanatics.

Oh, come on. (5, Interesting)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334854)

The "VERY ARTIFICIAL correction" you describe is never actually used. It's commented out. [jgc.org] You can plot that array, but I'm not sure what you think you're demonstrating.

Re:Oh, come on. (4, Informative)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335050)

On that same blog you link to [jgc.org] , there is an "Update": Read the comments below. It's been pointed out to me that there's a later version of code in the archive in which similar correction code is not commented out. Details and link below.

Re:Nice try (4, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334860)

Yeah right, the whole "house of cards" has crumbled due to one line of source code that was never published. How about doing a bit of homework and finding out why the unpublished graph was labelled VERY ARTIFICIAL?

As for the so called "missing data" it seems the MET have noted the advice in the Nature editorial and are now petitioning 188 countries for permission to publish the remaining few percent of records still tied up in red tape.

The sad irony here is that Jones has spent most of his carrer making the other 95% of those records easily accesible to the scientific community.

Ohnoes it's a global conspiracy (1)

KlaasVaak (1613053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334968)

No amount of handwaiving will explain this away for sure, but how about hundreds of data sets all telling a different story? You are willing to believe that because one data set of tree rings declines and this is 'covered up'thousands of scientist all across the world have faked hundreds of other data sets to publish thousands of peer reviewed articles all telling the same story.Really? How is that different from your average 9/11 troofer, nirther, etc? Advised viewing on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg [youtube.com]

Re:Nice try (0)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334976)

I'm not sure that the comment

For example. Just for the sake of arguement lets say the average temperature remained constant at 70 degrees last century. When you run the numbers through their “fudge factor” you still get a hockey stick. Even a decline in temperatures would still result in a hockeystick. Way to hide the decline!

squares with reality. If the average temperature were 70 degrees,(158 F), we'd be dead.

Same with newscientist (5, Interesting)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334670)

Same with newscientist [newscientist.com]
I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point. A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.

Re:Same with newscientist (4, Insightful)

glueball (232492) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334686)

A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.
They do destroy faithfulness of the research if the premise those millions of hours spent are false.

Re:Same with newscientist (2, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334848)

Once thing that's certain: this, like all other climate research relating to AGW, will descend into a hyper-partisan he said-she said type argument. This guarantees it will be impossible for anyone unwilling or unable to validate and analyze the data themselves to come to a rational conclusion.

One thing is crystal clear: these guys are biased in a way that is completely antithetical to true scientific research.

Re:Same with newscientist (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334938)

Personally I think the premise is so obviously false that this stunt will backfire on the coal industry as did similar "scientific" arguments by the tabcoo companies in the 80's.

Re:Same with newscientist (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334692)

A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.

If data that all those millions of man-hours of research is based on is bogus then the conclusions are worthless.

Re:Same with newscientist (5, Insightful)

mikechant (729173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334776)

If data that all those millions of man-hours of research is based on is bogus then the conclusions are worthless.

It's lucky then that the data comes from many different independent sources and is therefore not bogus at all then, isn't it?

Re:Same with newscientist (1, Insightful)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334970)

Why would it be lucky, since what you posted simply isn't true?

Re:Same with newscientist (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30335056)

Why would it be lucky, since what you posted simply isn't true?

Citation needed.

Re:Same with newscientist (1, Troll)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335144)

Sure. Let's take the case of AGW currently resting on a single dead tree in Siberia as an example. Faulty research is used as the base for other papers, and thus overthrowing the original research casts doubt on everything that has been built upon it later.

You see, while it's a common misconception that there are "numerous independent data sources" that "prove" anthropogenic global warming, it's simply not true.

Now I'll try to come up with a comprehensive single link to convey this picture. Maybe this works:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/ [joannenova.com.au] ... and in detail:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168 [climateaudit.org]

Re:Same with newscientist (2, Insightful)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335150)

Why would it be lucky, since what you posted simply isn't true?

Your post isn't true.

Argument ad infinitum.

Re:Same with newscientist (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30334982)

[citation needed]?

Re:Same with newscientist (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335140)

From what I gather, the sources may be independent, but there are a few middle men that this data has to go through simply because it has to be normalized with other data. One of the most important of these middle men (who as far as I can tell controls significant aggregates of historical data) has been shown to engage in systemic and unscientific bias. Further, this group has significant connections to the IPCC working groups. Similar biases have been found against the other major groups (NOAA and NASA related groups in the US).

To be blunt, here's a list of things that I think need to be done. First, all data and processes need to be made public domain. Simply put, proprietary data that can't be released to the public has no place in scientific research. It doesn't matter if industry-paid hacks attack anything they can find. If we can't duplicate the calculations, using your data and programs that went into your research, then we can't say whether you did it at all in the first place.

Second, there needs to be some degree of separation between the politics and the science. For example, James Hansen [wikipedia.org] who currently heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which is NASA's group for studying the climate) has engaged in a great deal of politics over the years, throwing away any pretense of objectivity. For example, he says [guardian.co.uk] :

In Hansen's view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. "This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill," he said. "On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."

Ignoring that carbon emissions can be dealt with through compromise (even in the worst cases) and hence are not like slavery or the spread of totalitarian ideologies, would a person with this sort of viewpoint "cook the books" when it comes to their science? Why not? When I see accusations of NASA data manipulation coupled with refusal to honor FOIA requests and highly ideological, crude public statements like the above of key officials, then it looks like a pattern of unscientific behavior to me. They can at least act like grownups.

The people trying to force carbon emission reduction need to take their time. If they're right, then a little more time will simply solidify their position further, especially since there's no urgency in the matter according to current research. If they're wrong about the need to reduce human carbon emissions, then that'll help humanity collectively. For example, Hanson has been crying "wolf" since 1989. Even if the science is determined now (I still don't believe we've shown that human activity has a significant global warming effect), it wasn't then.

Finally, there needs to be a genuine cost/benefit analysis of the possible choices, including various geoengineering options and procrastination. It doesn't have to be perfect, but I'm tired of the nebulous claims of disaster made by anthropic global warming proponents (Hanson in the linked story above claims "tens of meters" of sea level rise, but doesn't bother to say over what time period this rise occurs).

re:A few suspect emails do not destroy millions... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30334708)

"A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research."

Never mind the quality, feel the weight.

Re:A few suspect emails do not destroy millions... (1)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335026)

"A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research."

Never mind the quality, feel the weight.

So are you disputing the quality of the work of scientists who were not related in any way to CRU? And where's your evidence or arguments?

Re:Same with newscientist (4, Informative)

hcpxvi (773888) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334740)

Both the Nature article mentioned in the summary and the NS article linked by Idiomatick are clear and sensible articles and well worth a read. I do not, of course, hold out any hope that they will prevent the oil company shills and SUV drivers from baying for blood.

Almost (0, Troll)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334770)

I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point. We can't let a few suspect emails destroy millions of dollars in research grants.

Fixed it for you.

Re:Almost (2, Insightful)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334820)

It is not the millions of dollars in research grants that you need to worry about. It is the hundreds of billions of dollars in industries that stand to be affected if this research is true that you need to be concerned about. Follow the money.

Re:Almost (0)

bhima (46039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334884)

except the denialists & obstructionists pay better, so if anyone was in the climate science debate for the purely money they'd be writing papers denying or refuting the existing science... and there has been no real scientist publishing real science refuting the current understanding of our climate.

Re:Almost (1)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335040)

I imagine all scientific journals will be quite clear on this point. A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research..

I don't care what you say or what happens to my children or anyone else's children. I'm keeping my SUV.

Fixed it for you.

Re:Same with newscientist (3, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335076)

"A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research."

Of course not. But when the main suppliers of that information to policy makers turn out to be advocates of a dogma with a vested interest in manipulating that data, in colluding to hide contrary information, in DISPOSING (whups! accident!) of the raw data sets that they've compiled, attacking critics, and generally behaving as if they have something to conceal, it IS possible for those individuals to taint that research and especially the conclusions drawn therefrom.

Who Watches the Watchmen, indeed?

It's a known psychological fact that very often the victims of a con will be the most vociferous defenders of the con artists - they are now defending their own reputation and self-image, no longer mere facts of 'does this snake oil work or not?'.

Omg (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30334676)

wtf bbq

Unfortunate (1, Insightful)

glueball (232492) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334678)

There are items of interest--even if determined irrelevant in the end--to discuss.

This is as if immediately after the Kennedy assassination the government was saying "there is nothing to see, move along, move along"

Re:Unfortunate (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30334752)

I would compare it more to 9/11, the artificial choice of it's all a conspiracy or there is nothing to see move along. Instead of there are a lot of facts we don't want you to know so please don't look any deeper.

Same thing, "Oh, the EMAILS!". The emails, it's all about the email and a conspiracy! Either you support global warming or your a conspiracy nutter tin-foil hat and all. When really it is the fact that while global climate change is a reality, it is also being used to support an agenda.

Let me save the UN the time (1, Insightful)

portwojc (201398) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334700)

Here's the UN investigation outcome, "those emails mean nothing".

Just wait for it.

Re:Let me save the UN the time (1)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334924)

Here's the UN investigation outcome, "those emails mean nothing".

Just wait for it.

What are you implying? The ENTIRE UN is in on the "conspiracy" to give more funding to a select group of scientists, so that they can take more trips to Tahiti?

Re:Let me save the UN the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30335110)

The idea that the UN is in on some giant conspiracy is nothing new to global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it but it's not just to benefit a few scientists. They've got a huge bureaucracy to support..

There have been several moves in different directions that point to the idea that the UN wants to become a sort of Uber government with the ability to tax the citizens of individual countries as if they they were a single world government and everyone on the planet its citizens. This move through climate change, carbon cap and trade and such is just another attempt in that path.

Now, if, in fact, we could all get together and form a single planetary government with the best interests of all as its main goal, rather than have it forced on us by a set of bureaucrats, we'd probably be a lot better off than having a whole lot of individual governments, puppet-governments, insurrectionists, revolutionists, mobs and such all beating up on each other but, sadly, human nature being what it is, there's no way you're going to get over 6 billion people to agree on any one thing.

(Well, unless aliens from outer space land and try to take over the planet. That might get us working together. :-)

Re:Let me save the UN the time (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335090)

Here [ucsusa.org] is a description from a reputable source of how the UN has conducted it's investigation so far.

Further, the IPCC has a budget of $5-6 million per annum and none of the roughly 2500 scientists who compile the reports recieve a single penny of it in remmuneration. A small portion goes to the 2 or 3 paid staff but I will leave it at an exercise for you to actually visit their site and inspect their finiancial accounts to find out how they spend the rest of it.

Peer-reviewed journal? (1, Insightful)

dusanv (256645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334706)

Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously? No surprise that they won't investigate anything.

I think open source is the answer here. Open source the data, methodologies, any programs used. Anybody else should be able to reproduce the results by themselves. All that research is paid for by the public dime anyway and it's used to set public policy so it shouldn't be kept secret. Oh, and no anonymous peer "reviewing" would be really nice.

Re:Peer-reviewed journal? (4, Informative)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334896)

Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously? No surprise that they won't investigate anything.

Dude, you're not just talking about any journal here. You're talking about THE journal for the physical sciences. This journal has more than a century of scientific reporting as testament to its quality. It predates the Nobel price. It predates the work of Einstein and Schrödinger. Interestingly though it is not older than the discovery of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which was first described by Fourier in 1824.

Just to give you a clue what you're actually implying in your post...

Re:Peer-reviewed journal? (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335016)

As an active palaeoclimate scientist and also someone who has published in Nature I am deeply disturbed by this editorial. I have written to the editor and cancelled my subscription. There is no room in science for such closed minds. I fear that the editorial is now running behind the pack. By all accounts there is every chance the UEA investigation will be thorough and watching the Vice-Chancellor on television this evening he certainly was very careful to not defend CRU.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/2/has-nature-overstepped-the-mark.html [squarespace.com]

Re:Peer-reviewed journal? (1, Flamebait)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335084)

Right, that's the right reason to believe something - because the journal has a fine pedigree. Hence you should look the other way when they do a crappy job.

And, as far as I know, Einstein and the other early 20th century physicists published in physics journals, not that hodge podge stamp collecting journal that you think is so great.

Re:Peer-reviewed journal? (5, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334922)

Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously?

No, it's a scientific journal. They don't write about sports.

No surprise that they won't investigate anything.

If you read the article and summary, you'll discover that they did investigate, and found nothing wrong.

Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. Learning a bit about the scientific method would help too.

Re:Peer-reviewed journal? (2, Insightful)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335054)

If you're this sceptical of the peer-review process, then why aren't you dismissing everything else in science as well? It's done by exactly the same process.

Re:Peer-reviewed journal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30335138)

Is that a journal where the hockey team review each others papers anonymously? No surprise that they won't investigate anything.

The reviewers thought the paper had merit, therefore they're obviously part of a conspiracy? Do you have any evidence that Nature is being totally biased or do you generally just assume that people that don't agree with you are wrong?

And what would ending anonymous peer-review do? If anything it would leave the system even more open to abuse. "Hah! Dr Bloggs refused to give my last paper the all clear, so now that I'm reviewing his paper I'll reject it without even reading it!"

As for open sourcing programs, that's not going to happen. How can scientists open-source programs they don't own? You seem to be under the impression that all scientists write their own software. They don't, and many wouldn't have the skills to do so, which is why there is a market for commercial software.

Nice explanation in potholer54's video (4, Informative)

sucker_muts (776572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334718)

This video explains quite clearly how these leaks and the reactions on it should be placed in their correct context:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg [youtube.com]

Re:Nice explanation in potholer54's video (1)

ryanduff (948159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334830)

And how is this any different than the exact same picture being published by the news media year after year showing the ice shelf collapsing?

I think there's transgressions on both sides of the aisle.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AntarcticWilkinsIceShelf.htm [appinsys.com]

Re:Nice explanation in potholer54's video (2, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335166)

How do you people find the time to watch silly videos? Is there an accurate transcript? With still images? Perhaps a normal web page?

With all the moeny invested (4, Insightful)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334724)

And the apparent lack of transparency regarding the code, I submit that the researchers under fire be asked to use the code in question to reproduce their results under observation, explaining how they did it.

Data thrown away (-1, Troll)

LT Stephen (1693790) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334728)

Since they have no data anymore, how can anything they claim be seen as anything other than fantasy?

Re:Data thrown away (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30334780)

Since they have no data anymore, how can anything they claim be seen as anything other than fantasy?

You realize that them throwing the data away was done for the same reasons the BBC tossed out all those videos and films of old shows -- to save space. So are you going to then use the same logic to deduce that the BBC was willfully destroying evidence of events that happened in their studios to cover up some major wrongdoing? Because that's the level of logical leap many of you are taking here. "If they didn't have something to hide, the BBC would never have destroyed those tapes."

Re:Data thrown away (1)

LT Stephen (1693790) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334794)

BBC doesn't pretend to be doing SCIENCE.

Re:Data thrown away (1)

Dude McDude (938516) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334824)

You realize that them throwing the data away was done for the same reasons the BBC tossed out all those videos and films of old shows -- to save space. "

There's a bit of a difference between throwing out old episodes of Dad's Army and throwing away data that's supposedly helping to prove that man is causing global warming.

Re:Data thrown away (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335088)

There's a bit of a difference between throwing out old episodes of Dad's Army and throwing away data that's supposedly helping to prove that man is causing global warming.

Except when the data was thrown out, nobody knew that is what it would one day need to prove. Anyway, as other people have said here, there are many other sources of data around that you can use. If you don't trust this lot of data, or even these scientists, then just ignore them and move to all of the other scientists in the world.

Re:Data thrown away (3, Informative)

niiler (716140) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334876)

Here's a small portion of the data which is opensource: (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw [realclimate.org] )

You can follow the original link to realclimate.org to find many other links to data sources. I have posted the data sources above only because many critics of AGW won't even bother with realclimate.org as they are thought to be part of the conspiracy. The data exists and is public as is the source code.

Re:Data thrown away (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335036)

If you study the leaked data in question, there's no doubt as to realclimate's role in this. Thus, your use of the word "thought" is in error.

(Your links are fine though, I just wanted to clarify the comment about realclimate)

Time to investigate steroids in baseball? (1)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334762)

But we don't have time to look into this?

Congress, don't take your cue from Nature, do your job advocate of the people who are paying for this research and do an honest investigation.

Still curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30334764)

Why these so-called scientists are telling everyone to "move along, nothing to see here" while ignoring the fact that the global climate has not warmed, but done just the opposite. If the data is so strong, why did the hacked emails reveal intentional distortion of the data and collusion to suppress opposing viewpoints? Is this an "ends-justifies-the-means" thing?

The most telling word in the whole article: (2, Insightful)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334766)

Denialists.

That's right, anyone who "denies" global warming is human caused is denying the truth.

Some "climate-change-denialist fringe" (also their words in the link) who deny the "scientific case" of human-caused (their words, and honest ones. It does not rise to the level of a theory)
No, they could not be credible scientists that look at the data and see other hypothesis. Nor could they be credible in questioning the base data. The "debate is over".

Sorry Nature, epic fail.

Starting your argument with a personal attack is not good form. You expose your own bias to believe the human-caused global warming hypothesis by doing the very thing the scientists in the emails do: attack and discredit those who disagree with you.

Every scientific theory, and even "laws" like gravity, must stand up to rigorous scientific questioning... or they are merely pseudo-religious beliefs. You might as well declare Al Gore the Global Warming Pope and set up a church in Copenhagen.

Re:The most telling word in the whole article: (1, Troll)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334950)

Sometimes it's necessary to stop listining to the idiots. It's the same with evolution denialists. We can't keep spending time on issues that the vast majority of scientists agree is bogus.

Re:The most telling word in the whole article: (2, Funny)

bhima (46039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334974)

I find it fascinating that denailists like yourself express wild fantasies with religious overtones when complaining about science. I also find it interesting how you are so willing to assert conspiracies of gigantic proportions to explain consensus in the scientific community. It's pretty pathetic to see people so divorced from reality.

Re:The most telling word in the whole article: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30334988)

This is exactly right and exactly the point. AGW is a theory that should be open to scientific debate, just like any other scientific theory. The emails demonstrate that these scientists actively tried to suppress scientific debate, and that's wrong. Period. The endless nitpicking from both sides of the issue about the language and wording of the emails is misdirection. There is a debate about the validity of AGW. If that wasn't true, this wouldn't have happened in the first place.

The dog that did not bark (5, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334772)

Everyone seems to be focused on what is found in the emails and what is significant and what is not etc. But just look at what is NOT there. For years the skeptics side has been alleging a conspiracy, funded by communists, socialists, George Soros, Al Gore... Some global anti-American organization slyly orchestrating a campaign to emasculate America!

What do you see in these mails? Remember these scientists think they are talking in private and never anticipated being found out. Are there mentions or references to dark projects? Some references to their agents and their handlers? Strong ideological opinions to destroy Capitalism and install a world Government?

What happened is very simple. These scientists are used to one kind of debate and one kind of rules. Where "the conclusions reached by Kogen, et al [8] is not supported by the evidence presented by them [9],[10],[11]" would be considered a grave insult and might cause loss of reputation. In the question and answer session in a seminar someone saying, "But, Dr Kaplansky, with a sample size of 27, the correlation coefficient you have arrived at is less than experimental error" wouild result in a collective gasp and "ole!" from the assembled people, usually about 20 people who could actually understand the paper being presented.

These scientists are encountering the rough and tumble world of popular journalism, spin meistering. They are clueless about how to handle it. They feel they are being gravely insulted and highly manipulated. They think they are being quote mined, quoted out of context. The journalists are giving totally irrelevant and completely debunked theorists equal time for balance. So they go about in their clueless ways to counter it. They over react, they try to be more guarded, they are trying to write sentences that could not be quote mined.

Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns.

Why plagiarize? (1, Troll)

Blappo (976408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334932)

Give credit where it's due, please

"Computerworld magazine cited the view of the RealClimate blog that what was not contained in the e-mails was the most interesting element: "There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."[18] The science historian Spencer R. Weart, interviewed in the Washington Post, commented that the theft of the e-mails and the reaction to them was "a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers."[41]

Re:The dog that did not bark (5, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335112)

The people who are trying to sow FUD against AGW know that it doesn't matter what was actually in those emails. What matters is the accusations that they can hurl about without anyone really challenging them.

We thought that the media had grown a pair of proverbial balls after the Bush fiasco, but we were wrong. It almost seems to be going in the wrong direction, where they are less challenging than they were before for fear of *not* getting that interview.

Re:The dog that did not bark (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335120)

"Now that people have glimpse of the actual communications between the scientists, compare that to say, the hacked emails of Sarah Palin, See where you find more smoking guns."

Note to 140Mandak262Jamuna: the election was over more than a year ago. She didn't win the Vice Presidency, you can stop obsessing over her. Really.

How they acted? (2, Insightful)

ryanduff (948159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334774)

however, what matters is how they acted.

They weren't just saying things in those emails, they were acting on it. Scientific Journal is acting like all those emails were part of a fairytale and none of it ever happened.

In the one email, the author is quoted saying that he "adjusted the numbers." Last time I checked "adjusted" is past tense meaning that he did something. That's not the same as "I can adjust the numbers if you want me to."

If AGW was actually happening, there would be no need to "adjust" numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails.

Re:How they acted? (5, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334826)

If AGW was actually happening, there would be no need to "adjust" numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails.

So normalization of data should never happen, no matter what? Have you ever taken even the most basic of statistics classes?

This is the problem with the whole argument right here. You have people that don't have the first clue what they're talking about telling people how they're supposed to do their job.

Re:How they acted? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30335142)

Most academic "statistics" are a load of bullshit. Like you said, "adjustments" are tolerated. Those adjustments, and thus the conclusions, become politically- or financially-driven, rather than scientifically-driven.

In the Real World, mainly in manufacturing, we don't just "normalize" away any data that we don't like, or that do not follow certain trends we wish to see. We find out why the data are they way they are, even if it means that our original assumptions were wrong.

Re:How they acted? (2, Informative)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334948)

If AGW was actually happening, there would be no need to "adjust" numbers and likewise no need to cover up the leaked emails

Here in the southern hemisphere we have just started our summer. According to my measurements, it is hotter now than it was six months ago. As you say, there is no need to adjust any numbers, so this means we have proof of global warming.

But seriously, there are plenty of reasons why you might need to adjust some data. New measuring equipment (from alternative manufacturers), procedural changes meaning measurements are taken at different times of the day or even a different place. An organisation might stop measuring a particular reading and you have to go to another source.

Remember, these measurements have been taken over many decades through different political administrations, through budget cuts, and through technology changes. Even the reasons for taking a certain measurement might change over time, resulting in new methodologies for data collection.

This is not just one big experiment. This is a series of thousands of different scientific endeavours all coming together. There will have to be a normalisation process involved.

Re:How they acted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30335002)

Yes, he "adjusted" the numbers and then backed out the adjustment. He's was playing around with the data. What's your point.

The so-called skeptics are really getting me down. Doesn't anyone do critical thinking any more? The deniers are giving a bad name to skeptics.

Re:How they acted? (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335130)

The deniers are giving a bad name to skeptics.

I don't believe that!

Those that want to be bamboozled... (5, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334792)

... will be bamboozled. There is nothing new in that. It lies behind all political folly.

The data that was adjusted was paleoclimate data, and what it was being adjusted to was temperature data (i.e., the more reliable modern temperature data). As far as I can tell, they neither could nor did adjust the measured temperature data.

The OP did not quote the really important part of the Nature piece :

Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

The evidence for this is literally all around us. Throw all of the CRU data out if you want. It won't change a thing.

Indirection, folks (1, Troll)

samjam (256347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334802)

Now the nay-sayers can get a word in edgeways, now they are not being edged out by "non-conspiracists" who "aren't faking data" we can read a bit more:

This document from some German scientists attempts to shed new light on where some of the 'global warming' scientific conclusions may not be substantiated.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf [arxiv.org]

If it's too much for you, start at page 92 and don't whine until you've read at least 92-94

Re:Indirection, folks (4, Informative)

belthize (990217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334930)

Two points.

1) That paper is nearly a year old so the logic that "Now finally counter arguments can be heard" seems a bit specious.

2) That paper is a complete crock of unrefereed shit. I read 92-94 which are the conclusions and was so confused I went and read the earlier portions. There are numerous fallacies in their assumptions and they get some pretty fundamental thermo issues flat wrong.

      If you'd like to read physicists (not climatologist) opinion of the paper go here:
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-300667.html [physicsforums.com]

Re:Indirection, folks (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335020)

Wow! This 'paper' contains almost the record number of lies per square centimeter of screen.

There's a lot of impressive-looking equations mixed with easily verified lies.

Re:Indirection, folks (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335058)

That's a complete pile of wibble. "Climatologic radiation balance diagrams are nonsense, since they...do not fit in the framework of Feynman diagrams". WTF???? A fine example of "when you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".

No surprise here (0, Troll)

Mr. Firewall (578517) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334808)

"Nothing to see here, move along"

Just like every "investigation" where the ones doing the "investigating" are the same ones as (or good buddies of) the ones who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Just like a police dept. "internal investigation".

They could be child pornographers, and they would still find "nothing wrong".

Loss of trust (0, Troll)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334888)

From reading comments on this and the other stories about the CRU leak, it's pretty obvious to me that nobody here appreciates just how big the problem is. That's understandable, of course, since most Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do. You see, the reason science works is that we trust the researchers to not intentionally mislead us, and that if they do, we could look at the data and see for ourselves whether their conclusions are true. In this case, however, it is the data itself that is now in question, so nobody can see for himself. Consequently, it doesn't matter at all if all the data is released, if all the source code for the models is released, if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies. The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more. Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data. Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it. The political influence is just too strong.

Without any data, all debate on global warming is simply going to end. Advocates will preach their side, detractors will preach their side, and neither side will have any evidence. And without any evidence, there is absolutely no way you'll be able to convince anybody. That's how big the problem is, and it's time you liberals started to realize it.

Worst case (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30334936)

1) they're guilty of not properly responding to a FOIA request
2) they've said nasty things about certain colleagues work (but still cited it)
3) they've discarded some data for reasons they should have better explained (reasons that were valid -- it wasn't properly calibrated)

Bad for them personally, but utterly irrelevant to the scientific issue, unless you think it's some kind of surprise that scientists are human and sometimes make mistakes. As the Nature article says, it's laughable. Where's the global conspiracy? Where's the outright fraud of substantial masses of crucial data? Nowhere.

It's worth investigating for the possibility of misconduct, but, sheesh, the actual scientific impact is so overblown it's ridiculous. This is why you have many, many other scientists working on the same issues and completely independent ones: so that even if one of them makes an honest or a dishonest mistake, or one method yields incorrect results, the other people and techniques are likely to find the flaw and correct it.

The only "trick" here is the propaganda trick climate-change denialists are using to divert attention from the actual data and results of the last few decades.

Smoking gun? It's like they've (illegally) broken into the house owned by someone they've publicly accused of murder for a decade and found a plastic gun replica that shoots Nerf balls. Aha!! Gotcha!

Need to start over (-1, Flamebait)

gravesb (967413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30334940)

First, these guys are assholes who should never work again. That does not mean, however, that their work is incorrect. The problem is that everyone is working at two or three levels removed. Stop trying to analyze the source code. None of their theories is scientific unless we can replicate the tests. Write new source code to map whatever raw data is still around. If that comes to similar conclusions, then maybe the harm is minimal. (The harm to science as an institution is great, I think, at least in the mind of the public.). If it comes to wildly different conclusions, then we can work from there. Any work that is based on data no longer available should not be considered valid.

Re:Need to start over (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335096)

Any work that is based on data no longer available should not be considered valid.

If applied generally, that would require throwing out huge amounts of established science, not just in the area of climate research. How about doing it the traditional way of independently reproducing the result (or a similar one), with different data, different code, different researchers? In fact, if this hasn't been done already I'd be surprised.

What's next? Pedophilia? (1, Insightful)

GrantRobertson (973370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335004)

Next, the professional climate deniers will be accusing climate researchers of pedophilia. It is the conservative smear tactic of last resort. And since their smear campaigns are always completely bull, they are inevitably forced into using their last resort.

Why the need to supress debate? (2, Insightful)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335048)

If it's such god-damnned good science, why then are people saying "we must not have any more debate. Debate is closed. It's time to move on."

IDLE SUCKS BALLS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30335062)

get the fuck rid of it, there's enough crud online already!!!!!!11

Re:IDLE SUCKS BALLS (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335146)

Oh look! There's an open source clone [sourceforge.net] . I'm afraid your prayers will go on unanswered.

Can't extrapolate to whole community (1)

Strider- (39683) | more than 4 years ago | (#30335074)

Even if the actions of these people were nefarious, which it doesn't seem to be (playing with different scenarios nd what not) to claim that all the reserch is bogus because of it is a logical fallacy at best, and outright stupidity and ignorance at worst. The argument basically goes lik ethis: "Johnny runs Linux. Johnny also stole Windows 7, therefore all linux useres steal Windows 7."

There are dozens of independant sources of data, and independant researchers. I would be far, far more suspect if it all matched up perfectly. It doesn't, and that's good. It promotes discussion within the scientific community.

The "skeptics" in this case just don't know what they're talking about, and are guilty of fraud in and of themselves for claiming that a single case can be extrapolated to the entire body of research at large.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?