http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/ Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change. It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims. Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].” Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming “to hide the decline.” Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann’s past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily. There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone” and, “We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]?” In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!” At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, “I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails.” He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on.” Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming. Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones’ institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it’s difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts. We don’t condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain’s Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries. Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.
n one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona’s Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research, Jones speaks of the “trick” of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Hide the decline? “Keith” is Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit, also involved in the bogus manipulation of data. An e-mail from scientist Mick Kelly to Jones also speaks of manipulating data to hide the fact that Earth is actually cooling: “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again, as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent coldish years.” In another e-mail to Mann from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, copied to Dr. James Hansen of NASA, Trenberth says: “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming. We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.” Trenberth also says: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.” He goes on to say that “the data is surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Hmm… The Washington Times is ultra-conservative and was founded by a church leader. We should take this sort of thing with a grain of salt.
I’m sure goldman was behind the cover-up
"Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem ‘and not something secret.’ " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming “to hide the decline.” Without advocating any particular view on global warming, I think this paragraph demonstrates a huge degree of bias.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hmm… The Washington Times is ultra-conservative > and was founded by a church leader. We should take > this sort of thing with a grain of salt. It’s in all papers, in the WSJ yesterday and today, I’ve seen this story on all of the major media outlets as well. You can take off the right wing conspiracy tin foil hat…
ManBearPig is so pissed right now.
Hmm… so email accounts were hacked and leaked to the public… Any chance that there is some cherry picking of the discussions going on, stuff being taken out of context, etc., or is it best to assume that the hackers and leakers are too honorable for that sort of thing?
While I would appreciate global warming because I like the beach, I like skiing more, so here’s to global cooling!!
This is an editorial. I do not read this newspaper so I cannot generalized, but that was really a poor piece. If anybody has a link to a journalist article stating just the facts I would like to read it.
There are thousands of emails that got leaked so I don’t think anyone’s had time to write an article just on the facts. But, it shouldn’t come as a surprise scientists have agendas.
pgh.ndt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I’m not saying that the evidence is a result of a conspiracy. I’m saying that the Washington Post has exaggerated the significance of these findings and has drawn conclusions with the intent of promoting their own ideology. Even though it is evident that these researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have fraudulently concealed their findings, this does not mean that Global Warming itself is a fraudulent theory. UEA is not the only institution that studies climatology. We don’t even have a reason to believe that UEA is a particularly prominent or important institution in this field. It is just a random unknown university that had some dishonest researchers. Imagine if we were to use fraudulent University of Phoenix research to discredit an entire academic field in finance. One dishonestly-conducted study is not sufficient to upseat an entire academic field. It is extremely unfortunate that global warming is viewed as a left wing ideology rather than as a scientific theory. (I have nothing against the University of Phoenix, by the way. I just chose a random example.)
It would be like Goldman Sachs saying that it believes there is no higher power, when obviously Fidelty is around…
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Imagine if we were to use fraudulent University of > Phoenix research to discredit an entire academic > field in finance. One dishonestly-conducted study > is not sufficient to upseat an entire academic > field. Hey! don’t mess with my alma mater.
Sweep the Leg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are thousands of emails that got leaked so I > don’t think anyone’s had time to write an article > just on the facts. But, it shouldn’t come as a > surprise scientists have agendas. That is a major problem, a lot of opinions without analyzing facts.
Hello Mister Walrus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pgh.ndt Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I’m not saying that the evidence is a result of a > conspiracy. I’m saying that the Washington Post > has exaggerated the significance of these findings > and has drawn conclusions with the intent of > promoting their own ideology. > Actually, it’s not the Washington Post. It’s the Washington Times. The article does not fit the Washington Post’s ideological slant anyway. It very much fits the Washington Times’.
Sorry. I meant Washington Times.
I wasn’t trying to bash you Mr. Walrus; it’s not uncommon that stuff from the right gets published in the Washington Times and people take it more seriously because they think it’s Washington Post. It’s sort of like the difference between the New York Times and the New York Post. Ok, maybe not quite that extreme.
The Washington Times is reporting on it because the mainstream media has hardly run anything on the topic! That in itself shows a distinct, obvious bias from the media. And, by the way, this is one of the universities that works most closely with the IPCC–this isn’t just a random university. This is a huge story. But the NY Times, while not investigating the scandal itself, is investigating the hackers. The NY Times has as much credibility as a newspaper as the Washington Times. Here’s the major difference–the Washington Times identifies itself as a consevative newspaper. How do I know? As a Washingtonian, everytime I pick up the paper, it states itself CLEAR AS DAY in print that it is a conservative newspaper.
True. It is an unabashedly conservative paper. And I don’t have a major problem with papers like it being out there. I just don’t choose to take it extremely seriously. I’ve always felt it’s the sort of paper that looks at an Obama vs. McCain poll and then publishes “Obama Comes in Second to Last.”