Beam Me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/27/2009 7:30:59 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
When we think about “scientists,” most of us probably envision people toiling away in the lab or the field, accumulating and analyzing data in order to test theories, leaving their personal biases at home, scrupulously considering any confounding data or theories and willfully distancing themselves from the political implications of their research.
How quaint.
Truth be told, scientific research has been a blood sport for centuries. But a recent scandal that’s been dubbed ClimateGate is showing a very ugly side of climate science, and anyone who clung to that old-fashioned vision of scientists at work will be surprised by the reality.
There is much to be written and said on this topic, and a lot of what’s being said at this early date is hyperbolic, on both sides of the aisle. Here’s a good summary from Andrew Revkin at The Times:
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.
The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. … In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”
Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com ...
They’re going to have to go back to the Ozone Layer or some other scam now, I thought by 2009 they told us there would be no ozone and our skin would melt off our faces.
The “climate” scam gave them domain over every human and business action on earth, including breathing, we were doing far too much of that apparently.
I can’t read the whole article on my Blackberry. Does the Times disclose that Mr. Revkin is in a dozen of the emails?
And not only a big one, but not the only one. The Kiwis (NZedders, New Zealanders) have just such a cloud going up too.
Fraud masquerading as "science" at a level never before seen (AFAIK -- and that includes Lysenko).
Well golly NYT, why don't you determine if the skeptics are right? Or are you totally neutral with respect to truth vs falsehood?
Al-A-Gories....The Jig is up. Can’t fight it. Too many people know now. Hee Hee Hee!
When I think of scientists I picture people filling out applications for grant money.
They’ll fix the issue with MSM stories.
It will be business as usual. On Saturday last week the ‘climate scientists” had upped the threat from a 2 deg rise to a full six by the end of the century.
Too much is invested in this, and the prospects for wealth and control are stupendous.
People will have to be put in jail for this to begin to be blunted, and even then the sheeple won’t be told just why the climate saints were persecuted and imprisoned by the forces of big Oil.
Well mass spectrometers are pricey!
I thought the Ozone layer WAS part of Global Warming.
That’s interesting, because that’s one of the talking points the Left Wing immediately drums up as soon as you inform them of this scandal. They say, “Oh yeah, that hole in the Ozone layer just showed up for no reason...”.
It (the hole) shrank as I recall, right before the part where we all died.
Like the Fauci-Duesberg wars before it, if this is allowed to boil down to a stew of emotion, progressivism and double-dealing, we’re in for a long drought of flooded reckoning.
Well, the Natural Climate Change Deniers are already lying through their teeth trying to get this to go away. They actually have the gall to claim the e-mails don’t say anything incriminating.
What nobody seems to mention is that the hackers pulled a measly 160MB of e-mails, from a single Climate Research Unit, and they found literally dozens of examples of incriminating fraud. I don’t know about anyone else, but I regulary had to delete gigs of e-mail from my work computer every year. So 160MB is a very small volume of e-mail to find so many examples. Multiply this by a hundred to estimate all the e-mail from this one lab, and multiply by a thousand to estimate how much of this exists at other universities and labs around the world. And we SHOULD expect to find the same thing all over the world, since the e-mails from England were to and between other “researchers” in the US as well as elsewhere. So why should we believe this is in any way an isolated group of unprofessionals ?
Any reasonable funding source would halt all funding until all e-mail and other records had been investigated for compliance with FOI data retention requirements, and all these admitted fraudsters have been investigated.
Former Senator and Vice President Al Gore seen here en-route back to prison after a federal appeals court refused to review his 20 year sentence for his lead role as spokesperson in the “Climategate” fraud conspiracy. The same court recently rejected the appeals of the lengthy sentences of the 137 alleged UN “scientists” – Gore’s co-conspirators – for falsifying data that trial testimony disclosed would have virtually destroyed what remained of the U.S. economy.
If the NYT is writing about CG, then the rest of the MSM has been given the green light to do the same.
We generally pooh-pooh the idea of “conspiracy” but that is just what this looks to be.
This blog just proves that Global Warming is happening a lot faster than we originally thought!
I sure hope you are correct. Based on the quotes in this story: (Link: Momentum Grows for Copenhagen Deal) they are putting the pedal to the metal....
“When I think of scientists I picture people filling out applications for grant money.”
That’s because unless you work for a company its the only way to do research. You have to find the money somewhere. Universities don’t pay for your research. You’re lucky if they pay part of your salary. It’s a crazy system and has contributed to scientists being much less collaborative and much more likely to hype their data. Grant writing is essentially organized begging, and for a scientist ones livelihood depends on successfully getting grants.
Those who don’t do science might not know this, but the overhead on grants is a very big source of revenue for Universities. The overhead rate varies from university to university, but is generally in the 50-60% range (some are 100%). What this means is that for every dollar of grant money brought in by a faculty member, the government pays the university an additional 50-60% over and above what the researcher gets. So if a faculty member lands a 1,000,000 grant, the university gets an extra $500,000-600,000 on top of the grant. This is supposed to be to pay for the costs of maintaining the buildings and infrastructure in which the research occurs.
The point I’m trying to make is that its not as though all scientists are sitting around thinking about how they can bilk the government for money. Grant writing is a pain and the success rate for many government grants is hovering around 10% for many research agencies.
Why bother? The comments all say the same thing - the science is settled. A brief review of the definition of settled is in order. Settled does not mean that something is accurate, truthful, honest, or has any worth. So it is reasonable to say it about the science of climate change.
Besides, falsified data and fudge factors mean absolutely nothing. Climate change would be true even if the data showed that it wasn’t.
Any liberal can tell you that. Fake but accurate once again. :)
This long drawn-out babble about “science” really is the first assumption that never gets questioned. What “science” is used to determine the temperature of the globe?? Forget what its temperature was in the middle ages, what is it right now? Or, now? Or, now?
Do you stick the thermometer in the equator or the north pole. How about Rangoon? At what temp do you give the globe an aspirin? Or, starve the globe?
I dispute that there is such a thing as science that can determine the “global temperature.” The global termperature is itself arbitrary and thus so is the condition in which someone says its warming while someone else says its cooling.
And what is the globe? The plastic thing in my living room?
Why is everything “global” all of a sudden? The first 40+ years of my life I don’t remember anything being global. How did we all survive?
I don’t believe any of these people are “scientists.” I think they are grifters. That’s my scientific conclusion.
(And, by the way, if the properties that comprise the “climate” were not subject to “change,” there would be no such thing as climate. So PUH-leeze—let’s not call this “science.”)
Not sure about the NSF, but the overhead on an NIH grant is in addition to the amount of the award. A 1 million dollar grant costs the NIH 1.6 million for universities with a 60% overhead rate. And, there are universities (I think Stanford may be one) at which the overhead rate is actually 100%.
The environazis have admitted, in past moments of indiscretion, their true intentions.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323) This quote has also been attributed to John Holdren, Erlich’s co-author, who now works with Obama in the White House.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2395062/posts
bump for later
Adrew Revkin is part of the CRU crowd!!
He is referred to in many of the CRU leaked e-mails and is totally discredited. Anything written by him is puff at this point. Hopefully, he'll be one of the ones wearing an orange jump suit and doing the perp walk in the next year or two.
This quote from Andrew Revkin in the Times article is very telling. Believe nothing from this CRU media mouthpiece.
Reminds me of when the MSM finally picked up the ACORN scandal. The stories had a tendency to mention that ACORN employees were helping a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute, but usually left out any mention of the ACORN employees' eagerness to assist in the child prostitution business that the couple claimed to have. It was the most relevant and disgusting detail of the whole story, but the media got away with omitting it in most of their coverage.
Exactly! Even if we could determine the "global temperature", accurate to 1/10th of a degree, with all of our modern technology, which, of course, we can't, we certainly could not do this 100 years ago. The entire premise is absurd.
Wow, that’s pretty terrible, good to know. I’ve only ever dealt with the NSF as a grad student and that’s how it was explained to me.
What’s the global temperature right now? Did it get warmer or colder since you posted?
Yes. It is totally preposterous.
(Explain this to fours.)
“
ClimateGate: The Very Ugly Side of Climate Science
The New York Times ^ | November 23, 2009 |
Stephen J. Dubner
“
When a co-author of “Freakonomics” can get this sort of commentary
out on the Internet...
...it will be VERY INTERESTING to see how Obama handles himself at
Copenhagen.
Once Russia re-interates it’s recent policy statement that the
Russian economy will remain “carbon-based” for the forseeable future.
And then mainlane/Communist-Capitalist China and India fall in behind
Russia.
Thus Three-Quarters of the “BRIC” countries (Brazil, Russian,
India, and China) will tell Obama...”We Ain’t Gonna Take It,
Never Did And Never Will”...
when it comes to swallowing without any doubt the anthropogenic
(man-made) global-warming hoax constructed by the tax-payer funded
fraudsters like Phil Jones and his unindicted co-conspirators
in “ivory towers” throughout the USA and Western Europe, the U.K.
and other parts of the otherwise rational Anglosphere like Australia and
New Zealand.
G-d Help Us All if Obama gets any traction at Copenhagen.
God-Speed Senator Inhofe...the “one-man Truth Squad” that will appear
at Copenhagen. And shall promptly be ignored by plenty of the
“journalists” covering the event.
This guy is quoting the chief of the publicity wing of the "global warming" fraud industry?
Yikes...
Well, to save you the trouble I googled your question (pasted below). Again, “real” global warming skeptics aren’t debating this data, but rather asking questions like whether these small temperature changes (.72 degrees Fahrenheit since 1979) are significant, or whether the climate prediction models currently used by global warming alarmists are valid — and these are perfectly valid questions to ask! (Unless you’re one of the overzealous scientists from the leaked emails.)
from http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/faqs.jsp#globaltemp
What is the average global temperature now?
Climatologists prefer to combine short-term weather records into long-term periods (typically 30 years) when they analyze climate, including global averages. Between 1961 and 1990, the annual average temperature for the globe was around 57.2°F (14.0°C), according to the World Meteorological Organization. According to estimates by the World Meteorological Organization, in 2008 that the global temperature was about 0.56°F (0.31°C) above that long-term average.
Why are global temperatures usually expressed this way—as a departure from normal, instead of a simple global temperature? One reason is that there are several different techniques for coming up with a global average, depending on how one accounts for temperatures above the data-sparse oceans and other poorly sampled regions.
Since there is no universally accepted definition for Earth’s average temperature, several different groups around the world use slightly different methods for tracking the global average over time. The important point is that the trends that emerge from year to year and decade to decade are remarkably similar—more so than the averages themselves. This is why global warming is usually described in terms of anomalies (variations above and below the average for a baseline set of years) rather than in absolute temperature. ...
How much has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years?
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC’s 2007 Synthesis Report). More than half of this warming—about 0.72°F (0.4°C)—has occurred since 1979. Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most (about 1.26°F or 0.7ºC since 1979), especially over the Northern Hemisphere.
The year 1998 was the warmest on record for the contiguous United States, followed closely by 2006 and 1934, according to the National Climatic Data Center. In 2008, the U.S. saw its coolest year in more than a decade. It was the first time since 1997 that the nation has been close to its 100-year average temperature (though 2008 was still slightly above that norm). The United States was actually one of the least-warm spots on Earth in 2008 when compared to local averages. The globe as a whole had its coolest year since 2000, but the global average for 2008 was still warmer than any year from 1880 to 1996, according to NCDC.
A lot of the “scientists” who are pushing AGW aren’t. They are social scientists, economists, sociologists, leftist moonbat professors of english, poly sci majors etc. They are NOT climatologists. They are pinko communists hell bent on ruining the US economy and making Al Gore rich.
How can you compare a temperature reading from 1880 using a mercury thermometer to a digital thermometer reading from 2006? And what about all of the satellite data used today? They didn’t have satellites in 1880. And we’re expected to make trillion dollar decisions on tenths of a degree based on such measurements which may not be acurate at all. Who’s to say what the “right” temperature of the earth is anyway? The climate is ALWAYS changing. Look at ancient Egypt and the pyramid builders; that was less than 10000 years ago when it was a lush green valley.
2ndDiv- if you could post the following in a thread? I don’t know how to post threads- but this is breaking news about UN climatologists turnign on each other-
“UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf ‘should be barred from the IPCC process’ — They are ‘not credible any more’’
[[Who’s to say what the “right” temperature of the earth is anyway?]]
Me! Around 80 degrees with a light wind and no clouds in the sky is optimal I’d say :)
Remember when Gilligan was moving the stick to measure depth of the tides around and the professor thought the island was going to sink. Caused a real crisis. Almost like what we have here.
The Democrats favorite rathole to scurry down when caught red handed: "Both sides do it".
Speaking of which, Andrew Manning, climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia, wrote in one of the emails:
"I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurements here in the UK. . . looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question observed temperature increases."
Here we are a century after Einstein’s relativity and new theories and questions abound.
Is E = MC2 considered settled science?
Yet these crackpot climate guys have claimed their own measly stuff is settled. B S
Global warming really, really is ... MAN-MADE.
Read this: Bidding Adieu to R22
However, I found one comment highly encouraging, from a poster who signs herself "Sarah":
The MMGW theory is over. You won’t believe the lengths the group of companies I work for are going to to rid themselves of any suggestion they ever supported this nonsense.Last month the Directors were all for Copenhagen, this week, they have ordered the removal of any mention of CO2 from our websites, press information etc - it’s become a dirty word over night…!
Wish I knew which "group of companies" she's referencing!
Oh, don't be silly -- of course not! ;-) Just says that Revkin gave the best summary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.