Naw, sorry - it just indicates the usual infighting among academics. Science isn't really a "belief" system ;)

So no big deal?

can't help but think it'd be a huge deal if the roles were reversed. had any skeptics been outed, there'd be attention for days. this thread would be ten pages long by now.

Not so far, and I sure don't expect it to be. First, this isn't a political issue. It's a scientific issue. Even if these guys were to end up completely discredited (won't happen, too much verification of their work over the years so far) - such as the guys in Japan who claimed cold fusion - it leaves the rest of the world's work and data intact. And I'm sure there exists some fellow professionals who would lust after their jobs, and be quite willing to run the numbers and take it to the wall. I'll quote someone else on this:

Au contraire. It is entirely a political issue. Politics are what is keeping this issue alive. Politics are funding these people. Without the political connection climate change is just another theory that goes away as people move on to the next thing. The fact that top scientists feel the need to doctor data and a need to discredit the opposition is troubling. You seem to forget that there are a lot of scientists on the other side of the debate. Scientists once thought the world was flat.

LOL They weren't fighting but conspiring and deciding how findings can be manipulated and reported to reflect not what was absolute fact but what they wanted and seemingly needed to be fact. Their motive, whether it be greed or belief is much more open to debate than the conspiracy confirmed within the contents of their emails. But how pitiful it must be to be so closed minded the conclusion resulted by reading the emails is infighting.

If Global Warming was such an open and closed case why in the hell would scientific data need to be manipulated at all and not just reported. The answer of course is it's not.

[quote]If you take this particular groups funding away, climate change still exists.

Climate change is hardly "just another theory". If one eliminates Al Gore from the discussion of climate change, it doesn't change anything but a talking point for Faux News. BTW, in science talk, a "theory" is equivalent to our current known proven reality.

Data wasn't "doctored" in the manner the politicos imply (as to alter outcome). As I said, infighting among scientists is pretty common.

There are not "alot of scientists" on "the other side" of the data. The vast, overwhelming conclusion of the majority of scientific experts in all associated specialities throughout the world, over the past 20-30 years, is most obviously that climate change and significant global warming are obviously real. The only mistake they have made is that it appears to be progressing faster than anticipated.

Unfortunately, it is apparent that some quite unfamiliar with science (the press, some politicians) are making rather huge and false leaps of assumption.

For example, thinking that the couple of things talked about in this e-mail, by a few people, somehow magically discredits a huge, whole body of decades of other scientific work.

One would think that the most accurate judges of the importance of the content of the leaked e-mails would be the rest of the vast scientific community within this field, whom it would affect (they are certainly talking about it.)

Rather than taking the opinion of some elderly US Senators and a talk-show host or two.

like letting other criminals decide whether an accused is guilty or not?

Believe it or not there are parts of the scientific community (Independant of Gov. financing and grants) who aren't on the Al Gore short bus. And less than a generation ago the majority of the scientific community was predicting an ice age.

[quote=Riot]While you are correct that climate change will still occur the theory of humans as being a major contributor is absolutely not proven science.

Take away funding for these scientists and the hubris disappears until the next random weather event occurs at least. The fact there is a billion dollar industry that drives the humans affect/cause golbal warming makes ANY proof that the whole thing is overstated fair game for thier side to attempt to discredit that proof or evidence. The more the real push behind the global warming crowd is exposed, the less the general public will believe.

[quote=Cannon Shell]Global warming=scewed science=political opportunists=scare tactics=more govt regs/control. EOS.. BIG BROTHER IS HERE

Unfortunately most of the other scientists were using the tweaked data. Data that showed no warming. Now the raw data is gone. How convenient. Unfortunately for the boys at CRU it is illegal to delete information that has been requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The UN has been inconveniently using the fudged data also. Obama's Directer of Science and Technology John Holdren's name has surfaced in the hacked e-mails. Yes thats the same John Holdren who warned against the coming Ice Age in the 70's. He was also so concerned about overpopulation that he suggested putting chemicals in water supplies to sterilize people.

Yes, other scientists used that data. That's why they have more right to be "outraged" over the extent of this than politicians. They are not.

BTW, the data was for New Zealand. Not the entire world.

This group doesn't own "all the raw data in the world". That's certainly not true, "the raw data is gone". That's absurd, and completely not true. Even the raw data from New Zealand still exists from what I've read on the scientific sites. Can you post where you got that info from?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...L4oQlDNSJAJs2J
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...M9TAty2eLxyz5M

Better watch out...I'm cuing up all my Greenpeace data if you keep posting crap from the Post

I tried to find something on the Huffpoo but it wasn't there! I'll be back in about an hour. I'm going to have a few beers, clean my guns, and watch Beck!:D

I'm canceling all my medical journals, websites, and continuing education, and going with the op-ed page of the NY Post for all my scientific updates. Much less expensive.

Hey, seriously - would you pay to go to one of Beck's Education Camps this next year?

You would be much better off!:{>: