Climategate 2.0: Will the Media Do Its Job This Time?

"The new round of hacked emails from climate scientists floating around the internet hasn't generated the same buzz as the last iteration—at least not yet. But in certain circles, it's playing out much like the first batch of emails did in 2009. In addition to the tranche of emails, the poster included a list of "greatest hits"—short quotes from the emails taken out of their context that are intended to paint scientists as scheming or lying. The entire batch was quickly posted in searchable format on another site."



http://motherjones.com/environment/2011 ... s-job-time

Haven't bothered to read the e-mails. I doubt there is anything there that much of the flawed science in IPCC reports have not elucidated. Mostly it's a joke of cherry picked data and dishonest science.

Science Chic wrote: Interesting that you posted this article: I hadn't seen this one and the review of how various media sites dealt with it is very nice.

Here's what I already had:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsid ... m=facebook
Son of Climategate: 5000 New UEA E-mails Released, Jones Responds
by Sara Reardon on 23 November 2011

There's nothing really new in a second massive cache of e-mails that hackers have released from the University of East Anglia's (UEA's) Climate Research Unit, U.K. scientists at the center of the controversy said today. And the hackers, still unknown after 2 years of police investigation, aren't quite scraping the bottom of the barrel yet; there are reportedly 220,000 e-mails left in their hoard, and they appear to be promising to release more.

In a statement , UEA made its own suspicions clear:
These emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks [the U.N. conference in Durban, South Africa, next week].

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011 ... limategate
The Real Remaining Question of "Climategate"
—By Kate Sheppard
| Wed Nov. 23, 2011

...who's behind the hack?

It's a mystery that has remained unanswered for two years. Staff and others close to the University of East Anglia are adamant that it was not an internal leak, and that an outside party breached the server to obtain the emails. This latest batch of 5,000 emails appears to be more from those obtained in 2009, rather than a new hack.

Nice deflection. You didn't deal with any of the new information in the emails, just brushed that off. Your quotes and links deal with the big, bad HACKERS (boo). It's interesting how the socialist left was so tickled with the WikiLeak document and Jullian... when the poop hit's YOUR fan, oh my goodness... those documents mean nothing, they were HACKED.

Now... let's actually deal with some of the content of this new batch of emails...

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.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-debate/

The real scientist on 285 Bound can read the details at the link.

Frankly, it is encouraging to see some scientists admit to the fraudulent approaches and cherry picked science. It means there is still some hope for those scientists. The ones who see it as a political game and continue to feed BS ought to be ostracized from the scientific community. There is no room in science for anything but a search for the truth. There may not be marriages to hypotheses, no misrepresentation or stretch of data to make it fit a model. If its' wrong throw the damn thing out and start anew.

It really doesn't matter how much evidence of data manipulation or outright fraud is found now or in the future...there is far too much investment in the theory to ever admit they were wrong. It would be like trying to get a very religious person to admit their God is not real when faced with a stack of contrary evidence. I'm still waiting for all the old predictions to come true.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: Frankly, it is encouraging to see some scientists admit to the fraudulent approaches and cherry picked science. It means there is still some hope for those scientists. The ones who see it as a political game and continue to feed BS ought to be ostracized from the scientific community. There is no room in science for anything but a search for the truth. There may not be marriages to hypotheses, no misrepresentation or stretch of data to make it fit a model. If its' wrong throw the damn thing out and start anew.

In the original document release two years ago, there was a document called "harrys' text file. It was a running commentary and notes from a programmer named "Harry" who was tasked with cleaning up the AEU's computer programs and scripts that analyzed the various temperature data sets. The original computer programming was replete with programming errors... and these programs spit out faulty data that was actually used in IPCC reports. "Harry" tried to inform his superiors about these faults, he tried to make corrections to the compute code and this was all documented in his 300 page document... a document which has never been proven as a phony or as wrong. The various investigations into the emails never even considered this document of the problems with the modeling software.

I am a programmer of 40 years. I read the document, review the file after file of computer code, I had the various HADCRUT data sets that the AEU and other institutions around the world was using. With no uncertainty there was a problem, many problems, both with the original temperature data sets, the modeling programs and the data that was outputted and shared around the world.

Like I mentioned above, no official organization ever investigated these problems, all inquiries were geared to the released emails. Yet many programmers world wide took it upon themselves to examine the computer technology and found it wanting. It's easy to spin out of contexts emails, easy to spin by both sides, a journalist can do it... but it takes a professional programmer to understand "Harry's" concerns and to verify his revelations. It's been done, multiple times over, but the IPCC and all respective organizations have kept hands off the problems of the modeling software used to produce the "climate change" results.

If you are seasoned programmer and understand this level of computer modeling, then I've supplied enough information in this comment for you to Google up the facts and read this for yourself. I have a 27 page analysis of the computer problems... PM me if you want to see it.

"ClimateGate II: Handy Guide to spot whitewash journalism – The top 10 excuses for scientists behaving badly"
1. “The emails are old”

(No one has seen them before, and what makes two-year-old lies acceptable now?).



2. “The timing is suspicious”

(Alarmists release alarming stuff all the time in the lead up to big meetings, but look out, it’s suspicious when a skeptic releases alarming stuff about those scientists at the same time!)



3. “They’re out of context”

(We won’t explain the context, or quote the email, trust us, they just are, OK?)



4. “The emails show a robust scientific debate”

(But that is the whole point isn’t it? We were told the “science was settled”? It is dishonest to discuss uncertainties in private while you tell the public “the debate is over” and call anyone who questions that a “denier”.)



5.“They’ve been investigated”

(Even though the investigations didn’t have these emails, didn’t investigate the science, and were at least in one case, chaired by a windfarm expert, this point is supposed to have credibility?)



6.“They’re hacked” or “stolen”

(After years of investigation there is no evidence they were hacked. They could have been leaked. Police can’t or won’t say. Does this journalist “know” something the police don’t?)



7. “Aren’t the skeptics nasty people?”

(Crikey, imagine reading emails written by paid public servants on the job about their professional work? What victims! Those poor scientists can’t even threaten journal editors, conspire to ignore peer reviewed papers they don’t like, or discuss their ignorance in private… what’s the world coming too?)



8. “This doesn’t change the science”

(Since most of “the science” is merely a consensus of these same experts, whom we are told to respect, then actually it does change “the science” when they are caught cheating.)



9. The emails “mean nothing” according the scientists caught cheating

(The sock puppet earns bonus points if those same scientists also get to slur the whistleblower and skeptics with unsubstantiated implications that “they are funded by fossil fuels”.)



10. The public response is a “yawn”

(And given how few journalists are reporting the actual emails to the public, that’s entirely predictable eh? Circular reasoning strikes again.)

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/climat ... ing-badly/

The Liberals GOP Twin, the code would mean nothing to me. I'm just a nuts and bolts scientist and my negative stance originates with the science itself. I've posted some of the problems on global warming hype before. SC and I have gone done a few rounds on it as well. So not only is there a problem with the physics models they use, there also are computer problems. The story just keeps getting better. Yep, CO2 is driving global warming, but doing so from the back seat of the solar radiation engine.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: The Liberals GOP Twin, the code would mean nothing to me. I'm just a nuts and bolts scientist and my negative stance originates with the science itself. I've posted some of the problems on global warming hype before. SC and I have gone done a few rounds on it as well. So not only is there a problem with the physics models they use, there also are computer problems. The story just keeps getting better. Yep, CO2 is driving global warming, but doing so from the back seat of the solar radiation engine.

I'm waiting for SC to weigh in on the modeling software, the "Harry" document and the Hadcrut data sets. She knows about them, yet you never see her go there. Wonder why?

And my 27 page document is a summary of "Harry's" 300 page document, distilled down to a level that any intelligent person can follow the narrative. I don't go into the nuts and bolts of the code itself in that analysis, it's a bit higher level, without diminishing the impact of the problem.

I only offer it as a back up to my comments.