This is a basic misunderstanding about how research funding works. One's career depends on one's scientific credibility. Without it no papers get published and no grants get awarded. Research dollars don't don't come expecting certain results. Rather they demand that research be conducted to attempt to determine how a thing happens or doesn't happen and they have to be rigourously backed up and withstand critique by other experts. Even in-house private industry researchers aren't expected to toe the company line in their research. If their research doesn't say what the company wants it to say, the company simply never releases the report. But their scientists must remain credible by doing all the things needed to get their papers published. This is why some companies only allow their scientists to write "reports of investigations" and not papers in refereed journals that must withstand peer review and public critique.
Nonsense. There are thousands of climatologists globally who have worked for decades to reach their conclusions. You think that one research group in England who have openly published their data on one paper written 10 years ago somehow makes all science disputable because they don't have all of their old records? Only my those who don't face the scientific facts and believe tabloid journalism instead. It is grasping at straws in a futile effort to deny all science for political reasons.
Mark Steyn is a writer, political commentator and cultural critic. He doesn't understand one damn thing about how peer review works. That entire article is written as a humor piece if that tells you anything about how serious he is about science. From Wikipedia:
ah yes andrew sullivan, the man who is obsessed with sarah palin's uterus. This man and yes steyn is a political writer and a conservative but he didn't just make up those quotes about redefining what peer review is and ousting a "troublesome editor" because he didn't believe the global warming charges at face value.
Exactly, and when the research determines nothing will happen, the public loses interest and research dollars dry up. And when that happens the UN and Obama's agenda of wealth redistribution and a one world government dry up with it. Remember the 70's Ice Age Prediction? [FONT="] "reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance." and [/FONT] [FONT="]... a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources[/FONT]" Maurice Strong "[FONT="]the first component of an authentic global governance.[/FONT]" France’s former President Jaques Chirac "[FONT="]No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world[/FONT]." Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart So why in little more than a decade after the global cooling scare of the mid-1970s was the IPCC certain about human-induced global warming? Follow the money – the creators of the phony global warming scare stories have done so for a very lucrative purpose.
I'm giving the benefit of doubt that you haven't read the emails. The scope is not limited to a single paper 10 years ago. Simply not true. The emails range from 3/7/1996 to 11/12/2009 -only days before the story broke. The scope includes specific information on two iterations of IPCC report, multiple peer reviewed journal articles, portions of previously hidden raw data, source code, documentation of failed internal verification efforts and work at atleast three other universities... CRU is one of only three organizations keeping worldwide temperature input databases commonly used in modeling. The hacked emails and raw data show they were manipulated. How many later efforts relied on these inputs? I Donno, but it's >0. Those IPCC reports are are kinda important in the context of governmental policy development. They had a huge outside influence on the "science." But keep repeating dismissals though, and maybe they will become true... Where did anyone say all science is disputable? I still "believe" in gravity:yelwink2:. Hyperbole aside... If one kicks out Hanson's NASA work that's already been discredited and retracted... add in UEA-CRUs work, Michael Mann's work (UA?, Penn State) and subsequent derivative works utilizing their manipulated GATA databases there just isn't much "evidence" left. This much is clear... all of the censorship, data inconsistancies, data manipulation, thermodynamic flaws, and poor modeling techniques that have been raised by critics throughout the years have been confirmed. Not by agendized "deniers", but by the "warmists" themselves. The flaws were obvious to many scientists and modelers. And the emails chronicle how these groups worked in unison to censure those valid criticisms. The systematic squelching of other scientists proves that there are those that want man-made global warming to exist. I won't comment on their motivation... but their willingness to manipulate data and results to fit their predetermined conclusions is on display.
perhaps i would review the data if they didnt throw it out, and i was a scientist. you dont understand this issue because you do not see why people want it to be true.
Administrations come and they go, decade after decade. Public interest in anything waxes and wanes. When has research funding ever "dried up"? :huh: :insane: The IPCC did not exist until 1989, amigo. :grin: And need I point out that Time magazine is not a scientific journal? This is not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up though. Look, in the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions. These "1970's ice ice prediction" stories did not come in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But scientists are only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/. OK. Then show me the money!!!! You make an accusation that should be easy for you to prove if it were true. Then do so. Find for us one single example of a scientist creating "phony global warming scare stories" and profiting by it. Good luck with that.
That seems to be the consensus here. That one research center's informal discussions invalidate all of their research and by extension "exposed" the global warming conspiracy. If this were true . . . where is the avalanche of scientific papers exposing the data errors and reversing the previous conclusions? There are thousand of young climatologists eager to make a name for themselves by establishing a better temperature curve from unimpeachable data. The Journals would fall all over themselves to publish an article that reverses scientific consensus on climate change and withstands challenges. IF this happens, then I may start changing my mind. But it hasn't. All of them? Are you serious? This is one research group among many. They are not the world's only data repository. What exactly in their papers do you consider to be fraudulent. It should be obvious that what people talk about privately and what they actually do as professionals are not always the same. SabanFan would have been jailed a long time ago if internet remarks were to be considered as real threats.
CajinTiger posted an example in this thread Here You obviously haven't read through the emails. They are filed with numerous examples of stacking peer-review panels, collusion to exclude properly vetted dissenting papers from the IPCC, and black-balling journals that published contrarian papers, and discrediting any unagreeing sources. I'm not going to anyones' homework. I've already posted a link to the emails. As I stated above they are one of three sources of model initial conditions. Any modeling that used UEA-CRU historic temperature series for IC or calibration should be reviewed. If I was peer reviewing something and saw their work cited, I'd question it. Their input data for developing the GATA... "Processing" of historical station temperatures to remove the 40's Blip... Cherry picking tree ring proxies to those in the NH and during the "little ice age" while tossing those from the MWP... Incorrect energy balance for their elemental grids... Complete lack of accounting for solar radiation variance... Not modeling cloud obscuration effects... Not properly (or at all) modeling bouyancy of water vapor... Using a single station's data over a large number of model grid points, (they Sometimes even used NH stations for SH stations, WTF?)... Software routines that mixed modeled results with other sourced data to "make the result look right". (We don't yet know where those intermediate results were used)... Falsely inflating the size of the "consensus" by signing non-credentialed "scientists"... Portraying certainty of results that could not be internally verified... Knowingly destroying input data to prevent peer-review... EDIT: Showing data on a graph but not including that data in calculating the mean shown on that graph, thus falsely displaying the mean lower, and distorting the "anamolous" temperatures hugher. It makes no difference. People telling the truth don't have one story in private and another in public.
