NY Times: Hacked E-mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics

NY Times ^ | 11/20/2009 | ANDREW C. REVKIN

[randog]

“Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of recent climate studies were included in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”

And Mussolini kept the trains running on time...

[Old Professer]

This could get interesting; I’m still watching the arctic ice loss and we seem to have slipped into a pattern similar to that of 1910-1920; this disclosure, scandal, bump-in-the-road, etc. has probably scotched a series of doomsday releases from the advocacy press, at least.

There does seem to be a strong element of ‘suspicions confirmed’ here, though.

[Bob]

Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

How's that ol' Hockey Stick of yours holding up to scrutiny there, perfessor? I guess you don't really want to talk about it now, do you?

[dirtboy]

But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.

I guess the irony of making such a claim in an article about proof of forged AGW evidence sails right over Revkin's head.

The AGW movement has now entered the realm of self-parody.

[Billthedrill]

...global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

"Overstate"? No, they show that data was being outright falsified, that this was done deliberately and knowingly, and that the people involved attempted to cover up their paper trail on it. This is not a case of exaggeration as the author implies, it's a case of fraud.

This is poison in the well. Not a single report these individuals have produced is now without serious doubt. Not a single project any of them worked on is trustworthy. Not a single paper they peer-reviewed and passed is to be considered credible.

The author of the article is attempting to frame this as a matter of interpretation. It isn't.

[PapaBear3625]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the theory that this "hack" was in reality an inside job by a whistle-blower.

The "we are in a warming trend" meme is becoming less sustainable every day. If the lack of sunspots continues into January, we may find ourselves in a Dalton-type solar minimum. I'm hoping that we don't find ourselves in a Maunder-type (eg, "Little Ice Age") solar minimum, as that would be a bit too much to just prove the global-warming crowd wrong.

[Lancey Howard]

But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.

The above statement is not a quote attributed to some scientist or any other party mentioned in the story. The above statement was made by the "reporter" himself in the middle of his "report".

That's today's New York Times for you...
When is that toilet tissue going to hurry up and die?

[Old Professer]

The pilot fish congregates around sharks, rays, and sea turtles, where it eats ectoparasites on and leftovers around the host species; younger pilot fish are usually associated with jellyfish and drifting seaweeds. They are also known to follow ships, sometimes for huge distances; one was found in County Cork, Ireland...

[PapaBear3625]

The author of the article is attempting to frame this as a matter of interpretation. It isn't.

The author, Revkin, is a collaborator of the researchers. He's in it up to his ears, and he fears this scandal taking him down as well.

[Billthedrill]

It ought to. IMHO.

[jveritas]

The truth finally won as it always does, sometimes it just takes longer time.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Hundreds of private e-mails 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.

"Conspired" is the NYT's way to trying to discredit those who say the emails show instances of scientists talking about massaging data to fit their pre-conceived analysis. Was there a grand conspiracy involving dozens of scientists? Nope - but there is funding pressure, publication pressure and peer pressure to find evidence of global warming, and the email excerpts so far sure seem to bear that out.

[netmilsmom]

I am VERY glad to be wrong.

Let’s see how far the dam flows.

[haroldeveryman]

Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is quoted as saying
“...I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons..”
“Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science.”

But wait a minute! Here comes Andrew C. Revkin to set the record straight !!
“ ...the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument”.
So never mind all that evidence of collusion and fraud. According to a bio from NASA, Mr. Revkin has a biology degree from Brown University and a masters in journalism from Columbia and is also a songwriter and guitarist, occasionally accompanying Pete Seeger at regional festivals.

[BunnySlippers]

Bump

[snowsislander]

The author, Revkin, is a collaborator of the researchers. He's in it up to his ears, and he fears this scandal taking him down as well.

It's incredible that the New York Times is oblivious to the manifest conflict-of-interest in having Mr. Revkin "reporting" on events that he has been a participant in, and especially so when his role was, at best, highly questionable.

[dodger]

Typical NYT editorial embed ...

The documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.

[haroldeveryman]

“http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html";

Stock pickers call that chart a “head and shoulders formation” in the global temperatures. If these were rational times, I would sell General Electric and the New York Times short.

[PapaBear3625]

The data is now also available at WikiLeaks

[Richard Kimball]

Thanks much. I’m downloading it now.