io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 11:19 AM
Sat Dec 5
24 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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.
11/24/09
Al Gore had the same thought:
Internet or Inconvenient Truth...what to choose... what to choose?
11/24/09
11/24/09
So whole the ice melting in your glass will not cause your drink to overflow, dumping more ice in after it melts will.
11/24/09
This little Emily does make you think about ice melting. Thanks, Emily!
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
11/24/09
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