5 ms·

Exactly. There is objective proof of collusion to falsify climate data. Look no further than the 2008 Hadley CRU "climategate" leak. Edit: The leak actually h

Exactly. There is objective proof of collusion to falsify climate data. Look no further than the 2008 Hadley CRU "climategate" leak. Edit: The leak actually happened in November 2009. The file you're looking for is "FOI2009.zip".

autoexec 4y ago
Climategate was not the smoking gun people claimed it was Further reading: https://www.newsweek.com/factcheck-climategate-doesnt-refute-global-warming-75749 https://www.newsweek.com/factcheck-climategate-doesnt-refute... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c... https://science.slashdot.org/story/10/07/02/1433246/climategates-final-days https://science.slashdot.org/story/10/07/02/1433246/climateg... https://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/ https://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Controversy_over_hockey_stick_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Controversy_ov... https://skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-a...
- refurb 4y ago
  Reading the Wikipedia article is not very confidence inspiring considering the criticisms of “lack of transparency”, “lack of sharing code and raw data”, “heavy reliance on statistics but no inclusion of trained statistician”. The only encouraging finding was “no outright scientific fraud”.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    I thought "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[18]" to be encouraging. I haven't read all the reports yet, but it was good to see all of them ended up at that same conclusion. I'm sure there are people who would complain about the amount of time, money, and effort that went into investigating, but I'm glad there was so much scrutiny from so many different eyes.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      Why do you think that academics investigating themselves carries any weight? Of course they'll conclude there was no problem. If you want a writeup that takes a rather different view on what happened you need it to be written by outsiders. Try this one: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat...
      - autoexec 4y ago
        I'd have hoped that those outsiders would still involve climatologists, but it appears in this case the paper you linked was written by a economist affiliated with a conservative think tank and a man who spent his entire career working for mining and fossil fuel industries. These are clear conflicts of interest, which doesn't bode well for the paper. It'll still be interesting to see how what they say compares with the reports by actual experts working at places like the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the National Science Foundation, and the EPA, but I'm not expecting much to be honest.
        origin_path 4y ago
        Please consider the following questions. 1. How could a climatologist be an outsider? Climatologists are by definition not outsiders when criticizing climatology. 2. Why is working for a conservative think tank a conflict of interest? There are no such conflicts. If you think there are then, well, academia is well known to be dominated by people on the left, is that also a conflict of interest? If so then you have to write off most of climatology. 3. The whole problem climategate exposed is that "actual experts" are manipulating the scientific process to ensure that anyone who disagrees with their claims can't get published, and therefore gets labelled as "not an expert" and kicked out of the institutions. That's why the only people who can properly actually openly criticize that edifice are those entirely outside the sphere of government run science - but that fact is then used to write off anything they have to say. Do you therefore recognize that the argument you're making here is a circular one? 4. Given that, do you agree that climatologists are by definition conflicted - if they were to admit they had been manipulating the scientific process as was shown by the climategate emails, they would lose status, power, influence and quite possibly open themselves up to prosecution. They will obviously never do that.
pksebben 4y ago
uh, I did, and I think you might wanna take another look at "climategate", cause it sounds like a bunch of nutjobs flailing about snippets of text taken wildly out of context. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email...

autoexec 4y ago

Climategate was not the smoking gun people claimed it was Further reading: https://www.newsweek.com/factcheck-climategate-doesnt-refute-global-warming-75749 https://www.newsweek.com/factcheck-climategate-doesnt-refute... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c... https://science.slashdot.org/story/10/07/02/1433246/climategates-final-days https://science.slashdot.org/story/10/07/02/1433246/climateg... https://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/ https://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Controversy_over_hockey_stick_graph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Controversy_ov... https://skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-a...

refurb 4y ago
Reading the Wikipedia article is not very confidence inspiring considering the criticisms of “lack of transparency”, “lack of sharing code and raw data”, “heavy reliance on statistics but no inclusion of trained statistician”. The only encouraging finding was “no outright scientific fraud”.
- autoexec 4y ago
  I thought "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[18]" to be encouraging. I haven't read all the reports yet, but it was good to see all of them ended up at that same conclusion. I'm sure there are people who would complain about the amount of time, money, and effort that went into investigating, but I'm glad there was so much scrutiny from so many different eyes.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Why do you think that academics investigating themselves carries any weight? Of course they'll conclude there was no problem. If you want a writeup that takes a rather different view on what happened you need it to be written by outsiders. Try this one: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat...
    - autoexec 4y ago
      I'd have hoped that those outsiders would still involve climatologists, but it appears in this case the paper you linked was written by a economist affiliated with a conservative think tank and a man who spent his entire career working for mining and fossil fuel industries. These are clear conflicts of interest, which doesn't bode well for the paper. It'll still be interesting to see how what they say compares with the reports by actual experts working at places like the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the National Science Foundation, and the EPA, but I'm not expecting much to be honest.
      - origin_path 4y ago
        Please consider the following questions. 1. How could a climatologist be an outsider? Climatologists are by definition not outsiders when criticizing climatology. 2. Why is working for a conservative think tank a conflict of interest? There are no such conflicts. If you think there are then, well, academia is well known to be dominated by people on the left, is that also a conflict of interest? If so then you have to write off most of climatology. 3. The whole problem climategate exposed is that "actual experts" are manipulating the scientific process to ensure that anyone who disagrees with their claims can't get published, and therefore gets labelled as "not an expert" and kicked out of the institutions. That's why the only people who can properly actually openly criticize that edifice are those entirely outside the sphere of government run science - but that fact is then used to write off anything they have to say. Do you therefore recognize that the argument you're making here is a circular one? 4. Given that, do you agree that climatologists are by definition conflicted - if they were to admit they had been manipulating the scientific process as was shown by the climategate emails, they would lose status, power, influence and quite possibly open themselves up to prosecution. They will obviously never do that.

pksebben 4y ago

uh, I did, and I think you might wanna take another look at "climategate", cause it sounds like a bunch of nutjobs flailing about snippets of text taken wildly out of context. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email...