Climategate 2.0

[Jerome]

Climategate 2.0

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Interesting times.

[Watser?]

Piles and piles of evidence and JdG won't see it at all. But put a pea underneath the piles and it will zoom in on that.

[Jerome]

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

So, what place in science is the hiding of data?

Should not the conclusions be able to be replicated?

How can this be done when the data is hidden?

[Doctor X]

Mildred suffers from piles, yes.

--J.D.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by Watser?

Piles and piles of evidence and JdG won't see it at all. But put a pea underneath the piles and it will zoom in on that.

JdG will happily boil away like a frog in a pot whilst nitpicking a few paragraphs in some 5000 emails pointed up by The Heartland Institute. These are the same people who told us smoking was good for us.

[Jerome]

So, what place in science is the hiding of data?

Should not the conclusions be able to be replicated?

How can this be done when the data is hidden?

[davidm]

Oh, what a surprise, more lies from Forbes -- which has a vested interest in what, Jerome? Being the mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry.

Hey, Troll, remember so-called "climategate 1.0"? The original release of pilfered e-mails that raised such a ruckus of a scientific coverup?

It was all found to be bullshit.

Now fuck off.

[SR71]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

So, what place in science is the hiding of data?

Should not the conclusions be able to be replicated?

How can this be done when the data is hidden?

What data? What conclusions? All of it? Prolly not. Let's grant for a minute that something was covered up. How important would it be? Put this in perspective for me. Do we have 100%, 25%, 5%, .05% re AGW refuted? What exactly am I supposed to be getting excited about? Tropical troposphere? The article was noticeably short on details and long on broad declamatory statement.

[erimir]

Lemme guess...

They saved these emails from the first time they hacked in, and once their claims from the first batch were proven to be bullshit, they release these, which likely don't contain anything new or different, but they can pretend like this time, the allegations are true!

How much do you wanna bet that all the discussions of "hiding" the data are actually about wanting to make it harder for corporate shills to manipulate their data to stir up more fake controversies just like the type of fake controversy they created with the first "Climategate"?

And gee, do you think that scientists have any interest in making it harder for corporate shills to smear and libel them just like they did in the first "Climategate"?

If my emails got hacked into, and used to smear me with bullshit accusations in global media, you can bet I'd start talking about ways to prevent that from happening again.

[davidm]

Below is an in-depth, point-by-point takedown of the lies about global warming spread by Forbes (which Jerome always repeats like the dishonest, sniveling little trollbot that he is. Remember, Jerome is the one who repeatedly publishes data from ONE weather station purporting to show a cooling trend, when of course these data are collated from tracking stations all over the world, and have shown that the last decade has exhibited the greatest global warming ever recorded):

Forbes’ Rich List of Nonsense

Here is a whole page of articles on global warming, the most recent from yesterday:

Climate Change, at Countercurrents.org

[Doctor X]

I just took a scientific reading from my beer . . . GLOBAL FREEZING

Its evidences.




Sorry to make you all cry.



Relax.

--J.D.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Should not the conclusions be able to be replicated?

lol SCIENCE!

[Vivisectus]

There is a similar tactic used by the anti-evolution people. They say things like "More and more scientists believe in a creator in stead of evolution". It doesn't matter if the study is flawed, or if the percentage is still tiny, or if the data is from the late 1700's. People won't remember the boring refutation. They will remember that there was controversy, and feel that that means they can just believe whatever they want to believe the most.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Wow, it's amazing how these themes match anti-globalwarming talking points. Strange that. I assume another theme was clouds and gasses but that doesn't sound as scary.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by davidm

more lies

lol @ your argument that the e-mails are a conspiracy theory.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by SR71

Do we have 100%, 25%, 5%, .05% re AGW refuted?

Science does not work by making an assertion and demanding others prove it wrong.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

They saved these emails from the first time they hacked in

These are taxpayer provided information technologies.

Erimir, does not you boss have the right to what you write whilst he is paying you and you are using his paid for technology?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

These are taxpayer provided information technologies.

Erimir, does not you boss have the right to what you write whilst he is paying you and you are using his paid for technology?

This sounds like a legal conclusion!

(inb4chuck)

Explain to me again how you have the right to read all the emails sent by professors of the University of East Anglia (UK) because they work at a state university.

Explain to me again how you have the right to read all the emails sent by a professor who works at a public university in the US, where you actually pay taxes.

And then explain to me how hacking is not hacking if you think, for some reason, that you have a "right" to the files you hacked.

Also explain to me how any of that has anything to do with the fact that these emails are from the same batch as the other emails, and the first batch didn't actually contain any damning evidence. We're supposed to believe that the saved the really good emails for two years later, instead of releasing the ones that actually proved something the first time?

[Kael]

Now, now, I'm sure JEROME would not be so careless as to mindlessly parrot the news outlets regarding this matter, not given the high regard in which he holds openness and his declamations of the importance of completeness of information. So, JEROME, can you indicate any specific emails, in their entirety, not just the excerpts posted by the media, that lead you to suspect there is any actual fraud or deliberate deception occurring at the university in question? Could you be specific, not just about which emails, but which parts, and why you think they indicate dishonesty?

Given that you, no doubt, poured over these emails yourself and came to your own conclusions, instead of accepting the narrative dolled out by the media, this shouldn't be too much trouble.

[Jerome]

This is so much fun, it's like showing Catholics it is wrong to worship idols.

[Clutch Munny]

[davidm]

Even the title of this thread, "climategate 2.0," is a lie, because there never was a "climategate 1.0." The whole claim of scandal in the original affair was a manufactured pack of lies. Everybody associated with those e-mails was cleared of any wrongdoing, and when all the dust had settled, a few minor discrepancies had been found in the scientists' work or published material that amounted to zilch.

Jerome the Numb and his other fellow travelers of the the fossil fuel industry would have us believe that scientists, who are schooled in methods of honest analysis and detection, would make up lies (without ever offering evidence of a single lie that they told, or even any evidence of why they would lie), yet apparently would also ask us to believe that the fossil fuel industry is a paragon of virtue, and that -- heaven forbid! -- it would never lie, cheat, distort and propagandize even though it has a clear motive to do so: protection of profits.

My, my, Numb, you are so convincing!

[davidm]

Meanwhile, in Real-World Land Where Jerome Da Numb does not live.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

Meanwhile, in Real-World Land Where Jerome Da Numb does not live.

Well, yeah, but that is from the Associated Press which is, as we all know, in the pocket fanny pack of the Sierra Club. . . .

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Well, yeah, but that is from the Associated Press which is, as we all know, in the pocket fanny pack of the Sierra Club. . . .

--J.D.

It's interesting that you bring that up. Yes, this is Numb Nuts' usual strategy. But it isn't true. The AP reporter is doing a straight "he said, she said" style reporting. But what is Forbes doing? I've already linked to the article that showed their lies and prevarications on this topic in the past. In the dishonestly named "climategate 2.0" link, the article is not by a reporter doing "he-said, she-said," but rather by a "contributor." Who is this contributor? Follow the trail to the patriotically named "Heartland Institute," and find out.