@Voyou_Charmant: right.... don't pay attention to the science world falling apart around you... just call me a flat-earther instead. Let me know how that works out for ya.
@Mecharine: Ha ha, no of course not. Why, if it were just scientists talking to each other, to call that a scandal would be quite absurd! Indeed, good sir! I would be quite the simpleton if I got offended at such an innocuous thing, would I not?
No, I was more talking about the faking of "evidence", lying, trying to destroy documents, that stuff.
But hey, I realize I'm in the minority here and that the ends justify the means to some of you kind folks.
@cylon_conspiracy: Pretty sure the "science world" (otherwise known as the real world where people use proven techniques to increase our understanding of, well, everything) will still be around when this scandal blows over. Which, by the way, I predict will be sometime this week.
People who didn't care before still don't, people who don't know what they are talking about still don't and people who have made up their mind haven't changed it. Scientists are people, and send emails they might regret.
@cylon_conspiracy: Just out of curiosity, could you give me a few other examples of the "greatest scientific scandals of all time"? I'm wondering what you're measuring this against.
@cylon_conspiracy: So Michael Crichton was right! In his 2004 book State of Fear the premise was that the entire theory of Global Warming was a hoax and conspiracy. He died too soon.
@cylon_conspiracy: I haven't read the documents myself, but I read an interview with one of the leading climate-change opponents where he was asked which bit he felt was the most revealing. He quoted: "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". He seized specifically on the word "trick" as implying proof of collusion.
To me, that's the same as Creationists who seize on the word 'Theory' in Theory of Evolution implying there's no evidence to support it, deliberately ignoring the context of the word: to a scientist, a "theory" has a different meaning to that of a layman. To a mathematician, a "trick" also has a different meaning.
@Paradice: Respectfully, Paradice, if you haven't read the documents, and are just going by one article you read by someone who is trying to spin the story... then, maybe you should read up a little more on this story.
If you want, here is a skeptic site that is all over this story from the beginning.
@cylon_conspiracy: I'm not interested in reading incomplete releases of documents that were obtained illegally, and as I'm not a climate change scientist myself I doubt they'd be very enlightening to me anyway.
But, like anything controversial that I lack the personal expertise to form my own opinion on, I will read commentary (from all sides) from people with more knowledge in the field than I, and try to distill the essence of the argument. So I followed your link, and found pretty much the same stuff I'd already read, with the list of key points including:
* the "tricks" of playing with data to fit the scientists’ assumptions
I'm certain that is a reference to the exact quote I discussed earlier, and it just reinforces my belief that they're trying to use context and semantics to 'prove' deceit.
That's unfortunate, because it casts doubt over the other points they raise, some of which sound way more potentially damaging (especially the stuff about deliberately deleting emails to avoid Freedom of Information stuff).
The other thing I natually question is: why the *partial* release of the stolen emails?' Isn't that pretty much exactly what they're accusing the scientists of doing, excluding data that doesn't agree with their conclusions?
@cylon_conspiracy: Wow, an argument from silence fallacy. Just the sort of thing I would expect from someone who's too ignorant to know what's being discussed in those emails.
@cylon_conspiracy: There was some bodgy stuff in those emails, but not sign of any organised conspiracy.
If you stole thousands of emails from oil company's, car lobbiests, or well, just about anyone else you'd see the same. (or likely far worse)
The simple fact is people like clear cut pictures, shades of grey dont get press treatment, or are worse attacked as weakness's. Yet thats what science is all about. Its about the greys.
The climate IS changing and its probably the mass conversion of all the stored carbon in ground is having an effect.
But that dosnt make the effects predictable on small scales or in easy ways. Half of those "bad" emails I read were scientists trying to simplify the picture they present, rather then actual bad science of bad peer-reviews.
If they have anomaly's in their data they dont want to ignore it, they want it explained.
Dont get me wrong, over simplification is also wrong, but you cant dismiss worldwide scientific concess. To make all the scientists worldwide wrong on this, it would need to be a massive conspiracy with *more* funding then the various oil based industarys.
And there was no sign of that in those emails.
@twDarkflame: whatever gets you through the night. You realize, that disagreeing with me has absolutely no bearing on what's going to happen with this issue in the world at large.
And then of course there is the solution from Elizabeth Bear's Carnival: Build AIs that will save the planet... by literally taking apart every human being in the Northern Hemisphere.
If they ever did a sequel to Highlander, I hope they wouldn't let it involve Connor MacLeod designing a force field to shield the earth from solar radiation (not exactly global warming, but the global warming of the 80s), because that'd just be dumb. Luckily, there is no sequel, so that's all right.
@jbq: A sequel to Highlander! What a silly notion. Why not a sequel to The Matrix while you're at it? Hahahahahahaha. Why not two sequels? Or prequels to the Star Wars trilogy?
re: Restart the Gulf Stream. Sure, it hits -50 in Washington and the world leaps into action. What is the world doing about the -50 temperatures we currently get here in the ninth circle aka Minnesota?
Here's an an idea: make humans at least slightly autotrophic, i.e. make us photosynthetic, so we don't eat nearly as much. that way you need fewer methane spewing cows, less land for agriculture, and you also at least partially solve the starvation problem. Wow, I'm a genius! Where's my friggin' Nobel?!
@ggodo, the man from R.O.A.C.H.: Poor Harry. He really gets caught up in some messed up stuff.
The Scifi channels series may have deviated from the books but it was still fun. Maybe we can get a reboot with the vampire war and the Faeries.
In Rainbow Six, (by Tom Clancy), a group of eco terrorists genetically engineer a virus strain in the hopes of wiping out enough humans to reverse the effects of global warming. Then there's moonraker, which is essentially the same plot, but with a toxin and not a virus, and way more miniskirts.
@geesejuggler: Sentinels didn't make the clouds. The humans did when they nuked the earth in order to block out the sun and eliminate the robot power source. Unfortunately, this backfired and now we are all living in pods while the robots drain us of energy.
11/24/09
Not even a story about how the internet had a major part in one of the biggest scientific scandals of all time.
Oh well, I like reading about the planets that might have life and the space-porn and stuff.
11/24/09
Tell me, what exactly did you find distressing about the emails you read?
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Politics+Science=great combination.
11/24/09
No, I was more talking about the faking of "evidence", lying, trying to destroy documents, that stuff.
But hey, I realize I'm in the minority here and that the ends justify the means to some of you kind folks.
11/24/09
People who didn't care before still don't, people who don't know what they are talking about still don't and people who have made up their mind haven't changed it. Scientists are people, and send emails they might regret.
Nothing has changed=no scandal
11/24/09
But they can get back in the game if and when they find real evidence.
No scandal? Ok. If you say so. :)
11/24/09
11/24/09
"AGW Scientists".
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
Maybe you're just a terrible troll. You could have at least lied and said you actually read the stuff.
11/24/09
You called me a troll, and that means this is our last communique. Take care.
11/24/09
To me, that's the same as Creationists who seize on the word 'Theory' in Theory of Evolution implying there's no evidence to support it, deliberately ignoring the context of the word: to a scientist, a "theory" has a different meaning to that of a layman. To a mathematician, a "trick" also has a different meaning.
11/24/09
If you want, here is a skeptic site that is all over this story from the beginning.
[wattsupwiththat.com]
11/25/09
But, like anything controversial that I lack the personal expertise to form my own opinion on, I will read commentary (from all sides) from people with more knowledge in the field than I, and try to distill the essence of the argument. So I followed your link, and found pretty much the same stuff I'd already read, with the list of key points including:
* the "tricks" of playing with data to fit the scientists’ assumptions
I'm certain that is a reference to the exact quote I discussed earlier, and it just reinforces my belief that they're trying to use context and semantics to 'prove' deceit.
That's unfortunate, because it casts doubt over the other points they raise, some of which sound way more potentially damaging (especially the stuff about deliberately deleting emails to avoid Freedom of Information stuff).
The other thing I natually question is: why the *partial* release of the stolen emails?' Isn't that pretty much exactly what they're accusing the scientists of doing, excluding data that doesn't agree with their conclusions?
11/25/09
I know a trick for calculating the volume of an irregular spheroid , am I falsifying the volume of a spheroid?
You have memory tricks to remember things, are you falsifying anything?
You do not know anything about science, do not talk to an engineer about tricks of the trade.
11/25/09
Keep on humliating yourself, fool.
11/25/09
Why am I not surprised?
11/25/09
Check him out at sourcewatch.
11/25/09
11/25/09
If you stole thousands of emails from oil company's, car lobbiests, or well, just about anyone else you'd see the same. (or likely far worse)
The simple fact is people like clear cut pictures, shades of grey dont get press treatment, or are worse attacked as weakness's. Yet thats what science is all about. Its about the greys.
The climate IS changing and its probably the mass conversion of all the stored carbon in ground is having an effect.
But that dosnt make the effects predictable on small scales or in easy ways. Half of those "bad" emails I read were scientists trying to simplify the picture they present, rather then actual bad science of bad peer-reviews.
If they have anomaly's in their data they dont want to ignore it, they want it explained.
Dont get me wrong, over simplification is also wrong, but you cant dismiss worldwide scientific concess. To make all the scientists worldwide wrong on this, it would need to be a massive conspiracy with *more* funding then the various oil based industarys.
And there was no sign of that in those emails.
11/25/09
There was no faking of evidence.
Miss-representing, perhaps.
Faking evidence would be, like, melting glacers themselfs. Or changing ice core records etc.
Theres no sign of that.
Also no lyeing I saw.
And ereaseing emails is quite understandable under these circumstances.
11/25/09
Lates.
09/18/09
09/05/09
09/05/09
09/05/09
09/05/09
09/08/09
Mwaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Silly carbon-based bipeds.
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
The Scifi channels series may have deviated from the books but it was still fun. Maybe we can get a reboot with the vampire war and the Faeries.
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
Sentinels didn't make the clouds, humans did.
09/04/09
09/04/09