[tomder55]

How can scientific theory be proven true if it can't be reproduced ?

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

And even more basic ;how can you defend the creation of international policy that costs $$$ multi-trillions with economic,social and environmental impacts based on a theory that may very well be a fabrication ? Whether they are willing to admit it or not; the politicians converging on Copenhagen are playing with other peoples money ,livelhood and lives .

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action

Precautionary principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many politicians have invoked the "precautionary principle" to advocate government action on climate change . However , the precautionary principle can also be invoked against the dangers of government action. The precautionary principle should dictate they act cautiously especially now that their conclusions are based on tainted evidence.

Or are you one of those who argue "the science is settled ......we don't need no stinkin data" ?

[speechlesstx]

Whatever. That's the reaction by the IPCC chief.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

Mind you this is the same world body that's given us oil for food, child sex slaves in West Africa, and utter incompetence on Iran saying "trust us." Pachauri naturally doesn't believe an inquiry into the emails will accomplish anything but firmly believes a criminal inquiry into the release of the emails is needed.

[speechlesstx]

TPM editors made a typical but ironic attack on conservatives/Republicans in the wake of Climategate:

Do our beliefs form the basis of our partisan and ideological affiliations? Or is it vice versa?

There's been a lot of recent evidence not only that Republicans disproportionately disbelieve the evidence for man-made global warming but that their skepticism is growing. I think that trend is fairly classed under the general heading of Republican/conservative hostility to science.

The evidence is growing that AGW "science" has been corrupted, so let's attack skeptics as being hostile to science. Let's review:

CRU director Phil Jones uses a "nature trick" to "hide the decline" in a paper he was submitting for publication.

CRU director Phil Jones won't come out and say the world is cooling because "the scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms."

CRU director Phil Jones says if contrarians find out the UK has an FOI act he'd rather delete the file rather than turn them over.

CRU director Phil Jones says the death of skeptic John Daly was "cheering news."

Another CRU scientist threatens to "beat the crap out of" another skeptic next time he sees him.

CRU Director Phil Jones says he won't send papers to the Royal Meteorological Society "if the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available."

Scientist Tom Wigley threatens to kneecap a journal editor if he finds out he's a skeptic.

In 1999 the World Wildlife Fund suggest to CRU they would like to "see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible."

Now we find that CRU, after agreeing to release the data under FOI, tossed the data so it can't be reviewed anyway. As David Archibald said, "the warmers captured the whole system – all the journals, all their editors and the journals’ boards. They successfully removed inconvenient editors. As a last line of defence, they were going to change the definition of what peer review meant."

And I'm hostile to science?

P.S. A BBC expert says he had the emails 6 weeks ago. I sent a letter to our paper after reading 3 articles on global warming on Thursday but still no mention of Climategate. No response and still no mention of the fraud as of today.

[speechlesstx]

The Obama administration is apparently firmly in the camp of "the science is settled ......we don't need no stinkin data" An exchange at the WH press briefing yesterday:

Q Are you aware of a list, the published list of 31,000 scientists who oppose this idea of global warming?

MR. GIBBS: I don't doubt that there --

Q And 6,000 of them are PhDs.

MR. GIBBS: I don't doubt that there's such a list, Lester. I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this.

Like 6,000 PhDs and 25,000 other scientists that disagree and can't review the data because it's been dumped?

It's spreading, too. SUNY Albany is part of the scam according to Douglas Keenan:

Some of the emails leaked in Climategate discuss my work. Following is a comment on that, and on something more important.

In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The emails show that Tom Wigley — one of the most oft-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate — thought my paper was valid. They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to convince the journal editor not to publish my paper.

After my paper was published, the State University of New York — where the research discussed in my paper was conducted — carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed — contrary to the university's policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report's release.

But I was not allowed to see the report. Truly Kafkaesque.

As is Queens University Belfast:

Suppose that during the Medieval Warm Period, Earth was 1°C warmer than today. That would imply that the tipping point is more than 1°C higher than today's temperature. For Earth's temperature to increase 1°C might take roughly a century (at the rate of increase believed to be currently underway). So we would not have to be concerned about an imminent disruption of the climate system.

Finding out how warm the Medieval Warm Period is thus of enormous importance for the study of global warming.

It turns out that global (or at least hemispheric) temperatures are reflected by the climate in western Ireland (for a short explanation of that, see my site). Trees grow in western Ireland, of course, and each year those trees grow a ring. Thick rings indicate climate conditions that were good for the trees; thin rings indicate the opposite. If many trees in western Ireland had thick rings in some particular years, then climatic conditions in those years were presumably good. Tree rings have been used in this way to learn about the climate centuries ago.

Queen's University Belfast has data on tree rings that goes back millennia — and in particular, to the Medieval Warm Period. QUB researchers have not analyzed the data, because they lack the expertise to do so.

They also refuse to release the data. The story is scandalous.

I have been trying to obtain the data via the UK Freedom of Information Act since April 2007.

Even The Atlantic surprisingly has some harsh words over Climategate:

In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu. It goes to the core of that process.

One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson's study raised, and it was also emphasised in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre's campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.

I'm also surprised by the IPCC's response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side "deniers".

What's that, the sound of crickets still chirping?

P.S. Some interesting insight on the players involved can be found here.

Update: The Goracle is of course only doing his part for the climate out of the goodness of his heart. That's why for just 5,999 Krones, or about $1,213, you can shake his hand in Copenhagen.

[twinkiedooter]

It doesn't really matter what the "little people" think or want anymore. It's what BIG government wants and will GET by hook or by crook. They can manipulate the data all they want to make it say whatever they want. All I know is that the climate is getting cooler, not warmer.

[speechlesstx]

Did you catch this, tom? Jon Stewart on Climategate:

[speechlesstx]

Barbara Boxer has re-branded this scandal, "You call it ClimateGate, I call it Email-Theft-Gate."

Jim Treacher replies, "Climategate is a story about computer hacking in much the same way Watergate was a story about parking garages."

[tomder55]

Have been busy . Will watch the Jon Stewart thing tonight. The Atlantic despite it's occasional lean to the left (and providing blog space to pseudo-conservative Andrew Sullivan),is still my favorite magazine .

... or Watergate was a 3rd rate break in(Ron Ziegler).

[tomder55]

YouTube - Hide The Decline - Climategate

[speechlesstx]

Update: The Goracle is of course only doing his part for the climate out of the goodness of his heart. That's why for just 5,999 Krones, or about $1,213, you can shake his hand in Copenhagen.

Cancel that:

Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nations' Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week.

As described in The Washington Times' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multimedia public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book, "Our Choice," included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."

Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that "great annoyance" was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Mr. Gore's program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders.

"We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We had a huge expectation for the event. . . . We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation," said Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, in a statement posted by the company.

The ClimateDepot,com, an online news aggregator that tracks global-warming news reports, referred to the situation as "Nopenhagen," and evidence that popular momentum for the Copenhagen conference "is fading."

There are a few floor shows taking place stateside as well.

Pajamas Media founder Roger L. Simon and independent filmmaker Lionel Chetwynd -- both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Oscar nominees -- have called on the academy to rescind Mr. Gore's Oscars in light of the Climategate revelations.

"In the history of the academy, not to my knowledge has an Oscar ever been rescinded. I think they should rescind this one," Mr. Simon said Thursday.

News that British and American scientists had manipulated global warming statistics to suit their agenda was made public two weeks ago after their personal e-mails were posted on the Internet.

The film version of Mr. Gore's book "An Inconvenient Truth" won two Oscars in 2007 -- for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.

Damn right, rescind his Oscar AND his Nobel... and take the IPCC's Nobel as well. This is a golden opportunity for Obama by the way, he could be a stand-up guy and do as I suggested earlier and show us that transparency, say no to this Copenhagen nonsense and perhaps somewhere along the way he might earn that Nobel he won for doing the right thing.

[paraclete]

YouTube - Hide The Decline - Climategate

Very good Tom right on!

[tomder55]

For the fourteenth straight day, the three broadcast networks have failed to report on the great and growing ClimateGate scandal on their weekday morning or evening news programs.
Day Fourteen and Counting

[TUT317]

Hi Tom,

I can see where you are coming from and I agree with most of your posts.
Watergate didn't implicate every politician in America or the rest of the world.
ClimateGate in a similar way doesn't implicate every climate scientist in America or the rest of the world.

Given this it is probably a case of not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is despite the fact that the baby in this case is rather suspect.

I guess that is just pragmatism.

[speechlesstx]

And amazingly tom, that's in spite of the fact that it's been a subject of discussion in Congress and the feckless head of the IPCC actually said we need an investigation. Of course we know how that would turn out.

[paraclete]

And amazingly tom, that's in spite of the fact that it's been a subject of discussion in Congress and the feckless head of the IPCC actually said we need an investigation. Of course we know how that would turn out.

Yes indeedy, the first delaying tactic "let's have an inquiry"

[paraclete]

Hey Tom here's another one, a simple error, a deliberate mistake or are climate scientists just dyslexic as well as myoptic?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

[tomder55]

Watergate didn't implicate every politician in America or the rest of the world.
ClimateGate in a similar way doesn't implicate every climate scientist in America or the rest of the world.

Indeed ,in fact most American politicians seeing the corruption ,quickly distanced themselves from the Nixon Administration. In fact they took steps to drum Nixon out of office ,and many of those involved served jail time . Congress took all types of measures to try to ensure it did not happen gain.

Tell me ,how many of the climatologists and other scientists in America have even publicly condemned any of this fraud yet ? You would think they would be rushing for the exists and throwing the frauds under the bus as quickly as they can .I thought that is what peer review was about.

[TUT317]

Tell me ,how many of the climatologists and other scientists in America have even publically condemned any of this fraud yet ? You would think they would be rushing for the exists and throwing the frauds under the bus as quickly as they can .I thought that is what peer review was about.

Hi Tom,

Yes, that is a very good point. I am not sure why that is. Is it a case of a scientists not wanting to publicly criticize other scientists?
Professionals sticking together through thick and thin.

In politics loyalty only goes so far.Perhaps some peer reviewers are privately gloating amongst themselves. Others are perhaps very angry, but restricting their anger within the profession.

I am not sure, but I would like to be a fly on the wall.

[TUT317]

Hey Tom here's another one, a simple error, a deliberate mistake or are climate scientists just dyslexic as well as myoptic?
BBC News - Himalayan glaciers melting deadline 'a mistake'

Paraclete makes a good point. Another possibility is that when someone saw the data 2350 A.D they could have thought to themselves. This is an error he/she probably should have written 2035 A.D. "I'll fix it for them."

As far as such things as temperatures and dates are concerned, given enough steps in the reading, transmitting and recoding and 'the human factor,' errors will occur.

The more cumbersome the process the more likely errors accumulating. This would be especially true during the pre-computer age.

Given this I think a case could be put forward to say that we really don't know if the earth is heating or cooling.

Could be a thesis in there for someone.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Yawwwwwn... Tis much ado about nothing, as I suspected..

Here's what the NY Times has to say:
--------------------------

"The theft of thousands of private e-mail messages and files from computer servers at a leading British climate research center has been a political windfall for skeptics who claim the documents prove that mainstream scientists have conspired to overstate the case for human influence on climate change.They are using the e-mail to blast the Obama administration’s climate policies. And they clearly hope that the e-mail will undermine negotiations for a new climate change treaty that begin in Copenhagen this week.

No one should be misled by all the noise. The e-mail messages represent years’ worth of exchanges among prominent American and British climatologists. Some are mean-spirited, others intemperate. But they don’t change the underlying scientific facts about climate change.

One describes climate skeptics as “idiots,” another describes papers written by climate contrarians as “garbage” and “fraud.” Still another suggests that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose 2007 report concluded that humans were the dominant force behind global warming, should pay no attention to contrarian opinions.

Another quotes an exasperated Phil Jones — director of the climate center at the University of East Anglia, from which the e-mail was stolen — as expressing the hope that climate change would occur “regardless of the consequences” so “the science could be proved right.”

However, most of the e-mail messages — judging by those that have seen the light of day — appear to deal with the painstaking and difficult task of reconstructing historical temperatures, and the problems scientists encounter along the way. Despite what the skeptics say, they demonstrate just how rigorously scientists have worked to figure out whether global warming is real and the true role that human activities play... "
--------------------------

I tend to agree.

excon