Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Politics Science

Climatic Research Unit Hacked, Files Leaked 882

Posted by kdawson
from the playing-dirty dept.
huckamania was one of many readers to write with the news that the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit was hacked, and internal documents released. Some discussion and analysis of the leaked items can be found at Watts Up With That. The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine. Some of the emails would seem to raise concerns about the science as practiced — or at least beg an explanation. From the Watts Up link: "[The CRU] is widely recognized as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server. Here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.' The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files. It contained data, code, and emails apparently from the CRU. If proved legitimate, these bombshells could spell trouble for the AGW crowd." Reader brandaman supplied the link to the archive of pilfered data. Reader aretae characterized the emails as revealing "...lots of intrigue, data manipulation, attempting to shut out opposing points of view out of scientific journals. Almost makes you think it's a religion. Anyone surprised?" And reader bugnuts adds, for context: "These emails are certainly taken out of context, whether they are legitimate or fraudulent, which adds to the confusion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Climatic Research Unit Hacked, Files Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • Lindzen vindicated (Score:5, Informative)

    by brian0918 (638904) <brian0918@@@gmail...com> on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:01PM (#30176082)
    MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen has long made these claims about global warming researchers, as he discusses in a talk from a few weeks ago: "Cooler Heads [youtube.com]". It looks like he's slowly being vindicated in his views of both the researchers and the conclusions.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:09PM (#30176226)

    h ah aha ah ah haaaaaa ha aha aha aha aah ah ahahha aha ahaa h aha aha ahaaaa h aha aha aha cough cough...ha ah aha aha aha aha aha aha aha hh haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ [telegraph.co.uk]

  • The dog ate it? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:14PM (#30176316)

    Is this the same CRU that when asked to release the original raw data used in its climate analysis claimed it had all been lost?

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html [blogspot.com]

  • by meson_ray (1216924) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:17PM (#30176350)
    There IS at least some evidence of the falsifying of data. From TFA: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

    Adding temperature data from two different sources that seem to have different accuracies/systematic errors "to hide the decline" is evidence of falsifying data. In context, it is possible that this does not mean what it seems to mean. At the same time, this is evidence that there might be some systematic suppression of data that doesn't support human-caused global warming. Just because there's no worldwide conspiracy doesn't mean that these things aren't being downplayed because they're not part of the "consensus".
  • Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rockoon (1252108) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:20PM (#30176414)

    Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.

    You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests, and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?

    If there is one thing I know for sure, its that at least one of the skeptics is entirely open about the data and methodology (with source code, only free tools, etc..) he uses, and he even seeks input from anyone willing to help via his blog. That man is Steve McIntyre.

    Publicly funded scientists should be forced to open up their data and methodology, with prison terms for them if they don't. Its time they stopped using public money to boost their own careers while playing fast and loose in their good ol' boy club of like-minded conspirators.

  • by JoeBuck (7947) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:30PM (#30176568) Homepage
    I review papers for technical conferences. I regularly try to keep papers out of the publications. It's a necessary part of the job, because the acceptance rate is typically 25%, and because most of the papers are junk. Scientific publications are not free speech platforms; to be published, an article has to meet the standards and it has to advance the state of the art of the field.

    The bar for skeptics is always going to be higher. Otherwise we'd have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks every time some student messes up his lab assignment, because this will produce data that contradicts the theory.

  • by brandaman (1136955) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:50PM (#30176958)
    Is Richard S. Lindzen of the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT an idiot media personality?
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771 [climaterealists.com]

    Also: "The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend. More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale. "
    - SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf [scienceand...policy.org]
  • Re:The dog ate it? (Score:5, Informative)

    by pkphilip (6861) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:50PM (#30176964)

    Yes, it is the same CRU. Fact is, they have refused requests to release data by other scientists (not just Steven McIntyre).

    This is a good opportunity for someone to step in and demand that the actual data be released. CRU's claim of having lost data is completely untenable.

  • by UltraAyla (828879) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:52PM (#30176990) Homepage
    If you'd read further into the RealClimate article, you'd understand that the "trick" is normalization by instrument to understand each instrument's own bias and factor it in. Trick doesn't mean something to fool you here - it's a solution to an issue they were seeing in their data. The RealClimate post also mentions that the scientists who collected the data from 1961 onward in that case recommended not using that data.
  • by CannonballHead (842625) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:52PM (#30176996)

    Hm. Who did An Inconvenient Truth again? Who is pushing for "climate change" legislation? The hype and sensationalism is the fault of conservatives?

  • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:52PM (#30177004) Homepage Journal

    A skeptic is someone who is dubious, but willing to be convinced by sufficient evidence.

    A denialist is someone whose mind is made up, and will never be convinced by any amount of evidence.

    There isn't much skepticism about anthropogenic climate change these days, but there's a hell of a lot of denial.

  • Zero chance (Score:3, Informative)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Friday November 20, 2009 @04:56PM (#30177064) Journal
    That crap has been out for ages, and nearly all on the list have been proved to be idiots, not involved with climate research, and in a number of cases, not even scientists.
  • Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)

    by scorp1us (235526) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:07PM (#30177240) Journal

    Actually, I read many of the emails last night.

    Many are bland as hell. There's a few juicy ones, which have already been highlighted. The attitude that came across from reading email after email is that these people beleive they are doing science. They are well intentioned and don't mean to be pushing an agenda. However some of the emails indicated a desire to please governments and the IPCC. It was not as the AGW skeptics would have you believe that these scientists are forcing the policy, rather, it seems they are trying to do science that both pleases the governing bodies while still remains science.

    But I think there should be no consideration of what pleases whomever. It should just report the facts. But that's hard to do when you're funded by them.

  • by coaxial (28297) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:16PM (#30177418) Homepage

    Since you didn't bother to do any research before tossing around allegations of lying, nor bothering to figure out what exactly "Mike's Nature trick" actually was, let me.

    A quick google search of "michael nature global temperature" points to : "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" [nature.com] by Michael E. Mann [wikipedia.org], Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes from Nature 392, 779-787 (23 April 1998) | doi:10.1038/33859

    This was a a seminal article in the climatetology community. Mann et al took tree core samples and estimated the global temperature by measuring the spacing between tree rings. (Big rings are caused by rapid growth, which is in turn caused by warmer temperatures. Small rings, slow growth, cooler temperatures.) The fact that tree ring sizes are dependent on temperature has been a long established fact.

    Let me now quote the abstract of this article in full:

    Spatially resolved global reconstructions of annual surface temperature patterns over the past six centuries are based on the multivariate calibration of widely distributed high-resolution proxy climate indicators. Time-dependent correlations of the reconstructions with time-series records representing changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols suggest that each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing during the twentieth century. Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) ad 1400.

    Mann et al tried to create an accurate record of the global temperature by augmenting the estimated temperatures from the tree ring data with actual measured temperatures from 1981 and 1961 since these are actual known temperatures. This is known as "the MBH98 reconstruction".

    Now hang on. Here's where your allegation of "systematic suppression of data" falls all apart.

    In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published (*gasp*) Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series [ingentaconnect.com], whose abstract reads:

    The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, "MBH98" hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular "hockey stick" shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

    So the worldwide conspiracy of climatetologists breaks down when they behave like scientists, and try to duplicate each others' work, fail to, and publish corrections, and warnings saying, "Hey! You this data set we've all been using? It might be wrong."

    Thus begins The Hockey Stick Controversy [wikipedia.org], named after the shape of the curve at the very end of MBH98 reconstruction. Far from being suppressed, it's investigated quite thoroughly

  • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:17PM (#30177466) Homepage

    The only question is why did he choose the words "hide" as opposed to "correct" and "decline" as opposed to "error" which the skeptics (of this breach) are trying to imply, that "hide the decline" has the same meaning as "correct the error". I would argue to everyone, that the word hide implies falsification or concealment.

    And the original quote in the RC summary specifically points out why your interpretation isn't necessarily correct.

    So, either you're right and they're lying, or the RC article is right and it was a stupid choice of words. And given stupidity is far more common than outright malice, it seems the latter is more likely than the former.

    But, in the end, it doesn't matter, because you have a preconceived notion that AGW doesn't exist and that scientists are lying sacks of shit, and therefore confirmation bias will ensure that you will accept only those quotes/emails/documents/etc that confirm your belief, and you will disregard or suitably twist any other information that doesn't fit that bias.

  • by oldspewey (1303305) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:31PM (#30177688)

    AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming

  • by blueg3 (192743) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:36PM (#30177768)

    A lot of people commenting here clearly don't know many scientists, and thus don't appreciate how poor their word choice tends to be.

  • Re:simple theory (Score:5, Informative)

    by Burnhard (1031106) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:37PM (#30177778)

    1. Sun heats Earth with radiation in many wavelengths. Lots of optical-band + ultraviolet. 2. Solar radiation interacts with matter on Earth and heats Earth. 3. Some of the heat re-radiates upwards away from Earth, but much of the radiation is now in the lower energy infrared band, since some energy has gone into heating Earth. 4. CO2, methane etc molecules in atmosphere reflect infrared radiation back down to Earth, heating Earth more. 5. Humans are pumping lots of carbon out of the ground, and burning forests that store carbon. This carbon is being released into atmosphere as CO2, methane etc. Increasing CO2, methane etc concentrations in atmosphere (concentration of these molecules in atmosphere is roughly doubled so far compared to recent thousands /10s of thousands of years.) 6. So there is now net heating of the Earth, due to this excess trapping of Infrared radiation by reflection.

    Theory 3, the Earth warms, the heat is radiated back out into space. The warmer it gets, the more heat is radiated back into space. Some evidence, for example Lindzen and Choi [leif.org], for low climate sensitivity:

    Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.

  • by locallyunscene (1000523) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:38PM (#30177798)

    Denialists: Apparently, denying "climate change" is now a belief system and not founded on any real evidence.

    Actually that's exactly the point. Climate scientists have looked at the data and using the scientific method have the theory that AGW is happening. So far, the "deniers" have not been using the scientific method and have merely been repeating debunked claims.

  • Another good writeup (Score:3, Informative)

    by Eukariote (881204) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:41PM (#30177846)
    Another good writeup on the leaked emails can be found here [telegraph.co.uk]. Summary: manipulation of evidence, private doubts about whether the world really is heating up, suppression of evidence, fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists, attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period , and communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
  • by hrimhari (1241292) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:44PM (#30177896) Journal

    You just admitted to throwing out dissenting papers because they were dissenting.

    Where? I only saw selection based in quality. Where you implied that quality means non-dissenting, I read data that can be reproduced and analysis that hold to that data:

    Otherwise we'd have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks every time some student messes up his lab assignment, because this will produce data that contradicts the theory.

    A more visual example may help you: chemistry text book says that mixing 1 portion of liquid A with 1 portion of liquid B produces a green liquid. Lab student mixes liquid A with liquid C instead and comes up with a red liquid. Conclusion: text book is wrong?

  • Re:simple theory (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:45PM (#30177932)

    Even Lindzen's fellow skeptic Roy Spencer thinks Lindzen and Choi is wrong; see here [drroyspencer.com], and also here [blogspot.com] and here [wordpress.com], and a summary here [realclimate.org].

  • by TheFlamingoKing (603674) on Friday November 20, 2009 @05:48PM (#30177988)

    Because "Can't we all just get along?" doesn't really go well with "Let's use force against individuals to make them comply."

    I'd love it if the argument was "hey, why don't you guys think about reducing your pollution, it will benefit your pocketbook and your health". Unfortunately, what's being argued is more like "you will adhere to our rules regarding pollution reduction, or we will hurt your pocketbook or your health."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20, 2009 @06:03PM (#30178242)

    CO2 emissions mitigation policies cost money (as does climate change itself), but they're not going to destroy the economy or "roll back the industrial revolution". Sheesh . That's the skeptic scare version of "global warming alarmism". FUID against climate policy is at least as bad, if not worse, than FUD against climate science. More here [thebigmoney.com] on the economics of climate policy, and a good book [yale.edu].

  • by radtea (464814) on Friday November 20, 2009 @06:05PM (#30178288)

    When you read a large number of the e-mails, it becomes clearer and clearer just how much their data must be massaged and adjusted in order to reach the results they have.

    This is unsurprising--the unfortunate thing about the way climate studies has been politicized is that while this kind of thing goes on in all fields, it does so in public. That's ok because nobody cares.

    In climate science, with such vigorous voices on both sides claiming the most extreme conclusions imaginable from unphysical simulations, low-quality data and bad economics, both sides have tended to hide the inner workings of their processes, which results in lower quality science and much lower quality public policy.

    Climate scientists need to spend a few years publishing every little bit of information they have, letting the nutjobs on the other side have a go at it, and therefore draw them in to an open scientific process. The impression the climate community gives of being closed, secretive and unscientific helps undermine their credibility.

  • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Friday November 20, 2009 @06:18PM (#30178498)

    You make it sound like we have 150 years of data. That's like the creationist argument that we have no evidence for evolution or geology beyond human observation. We have much more than 150 years of data and your statements are misleading because you cite "C02 increases in general are caused by warming" while simultaneously ignoring the mountain of evidence which we have collected on CO2 and Temperature beyond calibrated thermometers and satellites.

  • by Cyberax (705495) on Friday November 20, 2009 @06:37PM (#30178790)

    Uhm.

    I don't think your example proves anything, I've used similar language when investigating data (not climate data, but industrial measurement results). Such language usually means: 'if we can explain that XX% of the effect is caused by instrumentation errors then there's no problem with the rest of the data as the anomaly becomes statistically insignificant'.

  • by hrimhari (1241292) on Friday November 20, 2009 @06:54PM (#30179046) Journal

    Whose point are you talking about? JoeBuck's or sexconker's?

    If I understand your counter-example well, it's a lot more applicable to early experiments than the textbook case. The point, as I understood it, is that once an experiment is repeated enough times to show that it comes out with the same result, one must be skeptic of a new deviating result because it's quite likely to be caused by human error rather than being a new aspect.

    If after strict validation no error can be found, just then it's time to consider that something was missing in the textbook.

    I have the impression that this is beginning to stray from the topic, tho.

  • by etymxris (121288) on Friday November 20, 2009 @07:03PM (#30179142)

    Actually it's a bit different for coding. Most of us programmers work in a corporate environment where we expect all our emails to be read by our superiors. Code is not expected to be perfect, otherwise we would never have to worry about maintenance. Comments like, "this works but I don't know why" are common but hardly damning. They are a flag to go back and do further analysis if there's time. But we're paid to make working solutions, not generate solutions that are mathematically certain to work.

    Insulting coworkers in the code is a no-no, and I've never seen it.

  • by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Friday November 20, 2009 @08:15PM (#30180046) Journal

    The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.

    Yes, it does. The theory no longer holds as it was moved from the point of being a hypothesis by the use of false data and known-invalid processes, and the truth was hidden.

    A theory is only as strong as the people, data, and process to support it. Eliminate the reliability of the researchers or the data, and you have removed the support of the theory.

  • by TapeCutter (624760) * on Friday November 20, 2009 @08:38PM (#30180300) Journal
    "The idea that Anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of any warming is where the debate is."

    I call BS, it is disingenious to give the idea that any scientist holds this position let alone is seriously debating it (as in having it peer-reviewed, something Watts has failed to do). And cotrary to your point 3 here [wikipedia.org] is the breakdown of forcings from the IPCC, you will notice the large error bars and if you bothered to look up the original report you would see they state with a 95% confidence level that humans are CAUSING more than 50% of the OBSERVED warming. Note from the graph that this warming would be almost twice as much as observed if humans were not also causing the earth to cool via areosols in our smog.

    There are also quite a few other well known red-herrings and myths contained in you post. I will pick on point 2 because I belive presenting a widely debunked red-herring created by lobbyists at the heartland institute as a serious hypothesis, is also disingeniuos. - Yes historically CO2 increases with warming but this does not mean that CO2 cannot cause warming and enter a feedback loop such that more CO2 realeses more CO2 (eg: melting permafrost). This is part of a major subject in climate science called "climate sensitivity", unfortunately geological records and the rapid disintergration of Artic ice indicates that our climate has a high "sensitivity".

    Some other points.

    In point 3 you conflate cliamte and wether climate is the statistics of wether and is remarkably stable (ie: in 100 million years summer will still be warmer than winter, the tropics will always be warm and the poles cold, etc).

    Climate is hideously complex to model - Actually it's horrendously expensive to calculate but the math is just simple brute force numerical intergration, similar to what they use for other "chaotic" problems such as space probe trajectories and streamlining vehicles. Like all modles thay are imperfect but by no means useless. Climate models have passed the acid test, predicting unknown phenomena that were later observed (google polar amplification for a good example, or high altitude precipitation rates or a cooling stratosphere if you want more).

    Point 6, we know from industrial records that humans have put at least half a trillion tons of excess CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 250yrs, we can also extrapolate the current rate of emmissions to find that figure will double in the next 40yrs.

    Point 5. Geologic and ice core data says it's happened before, the last time it was as warm as this decade the ice was gone and manhattan island was 180 feet below sea level.

    Point 4. Again paleoclimatology and observation indicates a high sensitivity, models tend to be less sensitive because they generally ignore feedbacks. This is why model predictions tend to be CONSERVATIVE, eg: the last IPCC report predicted an ice free artic summer by ~2080. It's clear from observations since then that it's very likely to be ice free by 2020.
  • Those of us who aren't global warming specialists don't know what to believe other than to be concerned.

    May I suggest that you go with what all major scientific organizations, including all the G13 National Academies of Science [wikipedia.org] say? Conspiracy claims on such a scale are highly implausible - someone paid the Chinese, the Russians, the Germans and the US? Moreover, the basic physics is simple enough to recognize that most of the denier arguments are plain nonsense.

  • Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:3, Informative)

    by chrb (1083577) on Friday November 20, 2009 @09:24PM (#30180716)

    Scientists who refuse to release raw data when serious questions are raised about their conclusions are not real scientists, and their work is entitled to no credibility whatsoever.

    There are loads of scientists who work for corporations like Intel and GlaxoSmithKline who don't release the raw data from their experiments. Temperature datasets are, in many countries, copyrighted by the corporations that gather the data. Attempting to get the datasets by issuing a FOIA request to the British government for the raw data is like trying to open up Intel's semiconductor research by issuing a FOIA request for the raw data. There's just no legal basis for the data to be released under an FOIA request. FOIA requests get turned down every day, and yet when a single FOIA request of a climate sceptic is turned down, people suddenly cry conspiracy...

  • by khallow (566160) on Friday November 20, 2009 @10:00PM (#30181012)

    Unfortunately tech corporations like Intel and biotechs like GlaxoSmithKline do not release their raw data either.

    Those businesses have a valid reason. They are protecting their competitiveness. Releasing this information can lose them lots of money. What's the excuse for hiding scientific data with no obvious business application?

    What is your solution - a law mandating that every scientist must conduct open and free research?

    Given that they were publicly funded? Yes, they must conduct open and free research.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20, 2009 @10:01PM (#30181016)

    And you are called a troll.

  • by TapeCutter (624760) * on Friday November 20, 2009 @10:18PM (#30181144) Journal
    "The very concept of "Greenhouse Gas" is a hypothetical, not a principle...[snip]...The original experiments seem to lack important scientific controls."

    You have got to be fucking joking!!! The "original experiments" were performed by Faraday in the mid 19th century, the theoretical foundation comes from Forrier who correctly predicted the phenomena in the early 19th century. The experiment can be watched on youtube [youtube.com] and I would assume a majority of slashdotters would have the tech savy to reproduce the experiment if they were genuinely skeptical.

    BTW: You will notice the tube in the experiment is open ended and therefore not "pressurised".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21, 2009 @12:36AM (#30181938)

    You fail to mention that the hockey stick graph is based upon 12 selected trees from the Yamal Peninsula in northern Siberia, cherry-picked from hundreds of trees in the data records from the Yamal trees. only 12 of over 200 trees there show warming, and they were the only ones used in the MBH98 work.

  • by TapeCutter (624760) * on Saturday November 21, 2009 @01:17AM (#30182142) Journal
    "CO2 isn't air pollution, CO, Hydrogen Sulfides, Sulfuric Acid, Mercury, Nitrogen oxides DO kill animals and more importantly Plants."

    The definition of a pollutant is "a resource out of place". More importantly CO2 is what is turning the ocean acic (carbonic acid) this in turn threatens the very bottom of the global food chain (ie: plankton). Covering the earth with trees would help but it is still not enough to aborb our emmissions. Ironiclly many of the traditional pollutants that you mention form areosols and have a significant cooling effect.
  • by ildon (413912) on Saturday November 21, 2009 @05:03AM (#30182894)
  • by Cyberax (705495) on Saturday November 21, 2009 @08:13AM (#30183476)

    Nope, I worked on climate models.

    Almost all AGW-denial stuff is simply a pseudoscience.

  • by the phantom (107624) on Saturday November 21, 2009 @10:35AM (#30184086) Homepage
    Are you referring to his use of the notation ``$villain''? Because if you are, the location of the dollar sign is perfectly valid. In many scripting languages, the names of variables are preceded by a dollar sign, as a way of declaring that they are, in fact, variables. Hence ``$villain'' means ``insert your favorite villain here.''
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28, 2009 @07:12AM (#30253682)

    Well then here is the allegation of deliberately with-holding data as to your *gasp* hockey stick model corrections, with the correct sequence of events which highlights how the data was available via the journal review process and temporarily given to Stephen Mcintyre (but only partially given, just read the article) and furthermore suspended.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html?currentPage=2#comments

    Also, if you review the emails in the CRU stolen 61MB file you can subsequently find collaboration of organised resistance to FOIA requests before they were even made in dubious and what I imagine are illegal means.

    The supression of data is all too clear.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28, 2009 @06:31PM (#30257108)

    Fact: If you bothered to do any research about this, you would have known this.

    Fact: If you bothered to stop making excuses for shitty research and misleading claims, you would stop saying others are wrong for not buying your bullshit.

    Oh, no you wouldn't stop, because you are a TROLL.

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Working...