climate center hacked

[SOREHOOF]

So much for all those "climatologists". The debate is over. I know a lot of people will still want to believe in this new state sponsored religion. The cap and tax bill will still probably get voted on. This is why the administration and their croneys on the hill want to pass all of these bills in a big hurry, before anyone has a chance to read, debate, or disprove what is being touted as fact. This is a very inconvenient truth for the global warming crowd.

[Riot]

So much for people that think climate change is political and false, rather than a scientific reality

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. 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’, 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. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

So much for people that think climate change is political and false, rather than a scientific reality

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

Some people with a smoking gun in their hand, standing over the dead body will still proclaim innocence. Oldest trick in the books in to deflect attention off of what was found onto some nebulous fantasy of what wasnt.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Some people with a smoking gun in their hand, standing over the dead body will still proclaim innocence. Oldest trick in the books in to deflect attention off of what was found onto some nebulous fantasy of what wasnt.

it's easier to talk about what isn't than what is. fact is these emails indicate a massaging of data. but that's not what believers want to see, so they ignore it. these scientists believe in warming. so, if they get data that doesn't corroborate their belief, they ignore or change the data. ta daaaa. global warming. they don't get called crackpots, and they don't get their funding cut.

[SOREHOOF]

This should be a huge story in the media, but it's not. Only 1 network is even reporting it. Can you guess who?

[witchdoctor]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

This should be a huge story in the media, but it's not. Only 1 network is even reporting it. Can you guess who?

The one that is unbiased.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by witchdoctor

The one that is unbiased.

That's rich

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's easier to talk about what isn't than what is. fact is these emails indicate a massaging of data. but that's not what believers want to see, so they ignore it. these scientists believe in warming. so, if they get data that doesn't corroborate their belief, they ignore or change the data. ta daaaa. global warming. they don't get called crackpots, and they don't get their funding cut.

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

[Cannon Shell]

So no big deal?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So no big deal?

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:

"The fact is the scientific consensus on climate change has been reached through the publication of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, field research and the lifetime’s work of some of humanity’s best minds. It’s obvious these emails didn’t even go through a spell-check let alone the rigorous peer-review process. Contrary to what the skeptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, NASA and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth."

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

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.

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.