Global Warming Science That Hides The Truth

Looks like the Global Warming science that is “settled” became a bit unsettled after a large amount of data from climate scientists was either hacked into or released by an insider. The email messages among climate scientists paints a picture of deception and cover-up.

Scientists lamented about data that showed cooling rather than warming, discussed tricks to manipulate data to get the results they wanted, lamented over data that showed a cooling trend, cheered the death of a scientist critical of global warming, and discussed ways of breaking the law to avoid freedom of information requests as well as ways to keep critics from publishing peer reviewed papers.

Not that any of this has been thoroughly investigated by the main stream media.

Does this mean that man made global warming is a hoax? Not in and of itself though it is highly suggestive that the so called settled science is anything but settled.

The so called reputable scientists that global warming supporters point to as the beacons of truth have taken a serious hit because they demonstrated that they are not so reputable after all. Their leaked emails show a group of people who manipulated science to push an agenda rather than people who used science to prove or disprove global warming.

This shows what I have said all along and that is the science is not settled. It can’t be when the data used to settle it is flawed. It also shows that while we need to continue using good science to investigate the climate, we do not need to commit trillions of dollars to something that is quite unsettled.

The global warming crowd tried to squeeze out scientists who did not toe the line for the cause and this has come back to bite them.

The hockey stick graph has been discredited and now the scientists involved in global warming study have been discredited as well.

Al Gore needs a new line because the science is not settled.

If anything, the dishonesty is quite unsettling.

Sources:
Daily Mail UK
Washington Times
Guardian UK (Lamenting about how this hurts and throwing blame to deniers)
WSJ (very damning article)

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

23 Responses to “Global Warming Science That Hides The Truth”

  1. Darrel says:

    I figured you’d fall for this one, and you did. Let’s give it a quick spank before off to work.

    Bigd: “paints a picture of deception and cover-up.”>>

    DAR
    You’re careful not to give any specific examples. That’s probably smart. None of them change “the science.”

    Bigd: discussed tricks to manipulate data to get the results they wanted,”>>

    DAR
    That one looks troublesome until you unpack it and consider the context.

    Excerpt:

    “Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.” –ibid

    Bigd: lamented over data that showed a cooling trend,>>

    DAR
    Dealt with above. There is no overall cooling trend. Quite the opposite. Note:

    “The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. Warming has been unprecedented in at least the last 50 years, and the 17 warmest years have all occurred in the last 20 years.” Link

    Bigd: cheered the death of a scientist critical of global warming,>>

    DAR
    Well that’s not very nice. And this effects the science how? Maybe he was an ass. Maybe if someone stole and published your private emails there would be some uncomfortably stupid comments and not very nice things in there.

    Bigd: and discussed ways of breaking the law to avoid freedom of information requests>>

    DAR
    And this from the same Bigd that was whining like a puppy that someone (no one around here) were speaking too hastily about the census worker who killed himself? Amazing.

    Bigd: as well as ways to keep critics from publishing peer reviewed papers.>>

    DAR
    Why don’t you learn a little about the background of these issues before you begin? Start here.

    Bigd: “Not that any of this has been thoroughly investigated by the main stream media.>>

    DAR
    Thoroughly investigated in less than a week? And none of it effects the science. And you have Inhoffe on the case!

    Bigd: the so called settled science is anything but settled.>>

    DAR
    The “so called” science? When the science goes against Bigd’s ideology, he can’t even bring himself to admit it’s science. Funny.

    Bigd: leaked emails show a group of people who manipulated science to push an agenda>>

    DAR
    If you had that, you would have something. But you don’t have that. Note:

    “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.

    Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.” –ibid

    Bigd: The hockey stick graph has been discredited>>

    DAR
    Actually, because of all the noise those two unqualified fellows made it was reexamined exhaustively (they took 27 swings at it an failed every time), and it was found to be as robust as ever. I am surprised the rightwing sites you hang around didn’t tell you about that! (not)

    And besides, it wouldn’t have changed anything even if it was wrong.

    What If … the “Hockey Stick” Were Wrong?”>

    The hockey stick is a bit of a specialty of mine.

    Bigd: and now the scientists involved in global warming study have been discredited as well.>>

    DAR
    You wish. Try again.

    Next time try bringing some science for me to nuke.

    D.
    ——————
    Global Warming’s Impacts Have Sped Up, Worsened Since Kyoto

    WASHINGTON — Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated – beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then….

    The message on the science is that we know a lot more than we did in 1997 and it’s all negative,” said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. “Things are much worse than the models predicted.”

    Link

    • In on it not says:

      Global warming has increased since Kyoto. Why is that?
      Probably because it isn’t man made.

      I have a simple question that you Global Warmers never answer; How did the polar bears and all the endangered animals survive the last global warming, 30,000 years ago when Alaska was a semi-tropical paradise?
      Or did the bear evolve since then?

      Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, and then sometimes, they refer to acually lying.

      Dar, this is your religion and you have a justification for everything in your religion. Go ahead. It is a country where you are free to practice what ever religion you want.

      Just don’t ask me to pay for your God.

      • Darrel says:

        INON: Global warming has increased since Kyoto. Why is that? Probably because it isn’t man made.>>

        DAR
        That’s called a non sequiter.

        INON: I have a simple question that you Global Warmers never answer;>>

        DAR
        Oh really. Did you look?

        INON: How did the polar bears and all the endangered animals survive the last global warming,>>

        DAR
        99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, so lots of animals *didn’t* survive the last great warming.

        INON: 30,000 years ago when Alaska was a semi-tropical paradise?>>

        DAR
        Show Alaska was a semi-tropical paradise 30k years ago.

        INON: Or did the bear evolve since then?>>

        DAR
        A lot of adaptation can occur in 30k years.

        INON: sometimes, they refer to acually lying.>>

        DAR
        Your task is to show it refers to “actually lying.” Oops, I already showed that it didn’t refer to lying.

        INON: Dar, this is your religion>>

        DAR
        My religion (more of a hobby really) is finding out what is true.

        D.

    • Blake says:

      D, you ARE a hockey stick- this “science” is every bit as valid as the old alchemical, “lead-to- gold” theories of the middle ages- none of the “scientists” or, if you prefer the term “funding whores”, (as I do) are truly doing impartial SCIENTIFIC tests on the climate, because their funding is derived from AGREEING with the “climate- warming” data- it might be a “consensus”, but it is a false consensus, driven by money, and nothing else- a child with a rudimentary education can see through these lies, and to have you attempt to defend this is laughable at best, and a sorry attempt to suck up to other liberals.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: “none of the “scientists”… are truly doing impartial SCIENTIFIC tests on the climate… a false consensus, driven by money, and nothing else>>

        DAR
        Now that is truly an amazing conspiracy! No scientists actually doing impartial scientific tests on climate. I can’t even make fun of a comment like that.

        D.

        • Blake says:

          I know- the truth hurts, doesn’t it Dar? Most of the scientists’ money rely on their tacit agreement that the earth is warming- so they go along to keep their funding, so that Al Gore and others can make more money, so they can give the scientists more money so that these “scientists” can make more fallicious statements. An endless loop, with no true science anywhere, just a “green” circle jerk.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “the truth hurts, doesn’t it Dar?”>>

          DAR
          Nope, the truth feels great. But I am sure it has been your experience that the truth hurts. After all you find it smacking you over the head all the time.

          The reality, is that if a scientist really wanted to make money they would approach the big funding like big energy and say: “hey, I can put together a big robust study showing this warming science is a bunch of hooey. Will you fund me?”

          And of course they would. And he would be come famous and win the Nobel Prize.

          And of course Bush’s government would have LOVED to have supported/funded that sort of thing during his eight years in rule.

          But the trouble is, no scientist can do such a thing because the data simply doesn’t support such a claim (or your position).

          At all.

          That’s why all of the scientific organizations in the world say you are wrong, and agree with me. In fact, it’s so obvious now that even the energy industry (Exon etc.), say you are wrong.

          Sorry ’bout that, but that’s the truth. The truth that hurts you, not me.

          D.

  2. Big Dog says:

    I did not fall for anything. I figured you would defend this dishonesty.

    Manipulating data to get desired results is dishonest and counterproductive.

    The hockey stick appears no matter what data is entered…

    I did not have to give examples. The emails contain enough dishonesty. You can read them though you will defend them.

    Of course, you defend everything that has to do with this hoax.

    It is not warmer and temperature increases and decreases are natural. CO2 is not a culprit.

    You warmers are all drones.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “It is not warmer”>>

      DAR
      Maybe you should
      try holding the graph right side up?

      Bigd: “temperature increases and decreases are natural. CO2 is not a culprit.”>>

      DAR
      Actually, it is. That spike? Man made. Not natural.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        Maybe we should go farther back and go from when it was hotter than it is now.

        Besides, how do I know this is not data that had the trick applied to hide the real trend.

        The emails are damning and show that the science is NOT settled. Settled science does not need data manipulated to make a point.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “how do I know this is not data that had the trick applied to hide the real trend.”>>

        DAR
        As explained above, in context, the “trick” didn’t “hide” anything. All the data was right there, in plain sight.

  3. Big Dog says:

    And I did not say it was not science I said so called SETTLED science is anything but SETTLED. I never denied science, just that it is not settled.

  4. Adam says:

    You say that it’s just not settled science then you turn around and say something laughingly ridiculous like this:

    “It is not warmer and temperature increases and decreases are natural. CO2 is not a culprit.”

    Thank god for these e-mails being stolen, it was getting harder and hard for us “warmers” to lie with a straight face…

  5. Adam says:

    I like this quote:

    Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.

    The truth about the Great Global Warming Hoax was well hidden until now, darn it.

    Thank God that while in the process of stealing this evidence the hackers didn’t notice the pictures of the gun that Hillary used to kill Vince Foster, the vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate, or the flash drive detailing how ACORN used the CRA to steal millions of votes to give the election to the community organizer-in-chief.

    Those things will have to remain a mystery…at least for the time being.

  6. In on it not says:

    As will the joy-stick controller that GWB used to fly the planes into the towers, and the computer program used to rig the Florida election, and the (fill in any hair-lipped liberal conspiracy-theory)

    • Big Dog says:

      Or the machine he used to steer hurricane Katrina to Florida. Little did he know that he would be blamed for the complete failure of city and state government…

  7. Mr Pink Eyes says:

    The global warming alarmists have manipulated the data they used and excluded the data that did not support their theory. This whole thing is a scam, the people who are pushing this agenda are frauds. The science is not settled because the alarmists have been cooking the books. Whoever leaked these emails is a whistleblower and the one thing we learned during the Bush administration is that whisleblowing is good.
    The media will ignore this story and the politicians are moving forward as if nothing has happened but we can not let this story die. The global warming movement has been built on a stack of lies.

    • Darrel says:

      MR PINK: The global warming alarmists have manipulated the data they used and excluded the data that did not support their theory.>>

      DAR
      Sorry, that doesn’t pass the laugh test. The idea that the thousands of scientists involved in this are all part of a conspiracy is too stupid for words.

      Mrpink: whisleblowing is good.>>

      DAR
      Yes it is. So you’ve blown your whistle, now lets see what you’ve got. What have you got? Make your case for you claims. You do know there is a difference between making claims, and actually backing them up? Right?

      Mrpink: politicians are moving forward as if nothing has happened>>

      DAR
      That’s because… nothing has happened.

      Feel free to show otherwise.

      D.
      —————–
      Global Warming’s Impacts Have Sped Up, Worsened Since Kyoto.