Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by NeilFawcett, Nov 25, 2009.
It's rubbish, if you actually read the leaks it shows very minor things, the article has blown it way out of proportion.
Also, we've been told to change our passwords (I'm at the University)
Doh! Sorry! And I did a search!
Didn't search for 'climate' did you
I'm not saying anything! No! You can't make me!
what happened to the saying, 70% of the info in newspapers is lies?
theres stuff likes these coming out every week.
Would that mean that 70% of the stuff supporting climate change is also lies or does it only apply to stuff you don't agree with?
whether its true or not, Climatologists and Climate-Change scientists in general rely on funding, if climate-change is proven to be either a natural phenomenon or non-existant then that funding dries up or is rerouted elsewhere.
The reality is that the earths climate does change, often to extremes over long periods of time and the question is not whether it is happening or not, but is it attributable to Man and can we do something about it by curtailing the causes.
I wouldn't call colluding to shut down critics, manipulating data and perverting the scientific facts to support a pre-defined conclusion minor at all.
Not to mention attempts to evade Freedom of Information and a blatent admission that the planet isn't warming as predicted by their "computer models".
They don't receive any more funding if anthropogenic climate change is real, though? Whether or not man is changing the climate (which we are, everyone agrees with this apart from Telegraph columnists and people too selfish/sociopathic to alter their behaviour) we will still need to study climatology, it's a pretty important field.
Which is why it is so important that research is being done honestly and openly, something that these emails confirm the CRU have no interest in.
Expand, please? The only claim I've heard being made is an absolute non-story.
Strange, I've thought exactly the opposite, from a scientific point of view, the emails show a frankly alarming disregard for established protocols. From a legal point of view, deleting information requested under FOI is a crime.
You can find all the original emails placed online here
I also find the reaction of George Monbiot (who is himself a strong believer in climate change) to be a pretty good analysis of the situation.
I've copied an amended copy, which includes the actual emails, rather than citations, to put it in perspective.
Conspiring to keep people out of peer review, to oust scientists with opposing views, and so on is just completely unacceptable. The very essence of the scientific process, and the reason it is so well regarded, is the ability to counter work with work of you own, and to let it stand or fall on its merits, and that is exactly what the CRU, from their own emails are trying to prevent.
The admission that their data doesn't match reality, and that their predictions are wrong which is apparently the planet's fault and not theirs, really don't help their case either.
Oh, I definitely agree. I hadn't seen anything like this—just the usual perspectiveless prattle. It's odd that a more powerful indictment is made if you leave out the conjecture about this being some sort of death knell for anthropogenic global warming, and yet nobody seems to have done so bar Monbiot.
This article is also good: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
They recieve funding to study, it's not a case of more or less, no artificial warming, no reason to fund research into it. My point was that these scientists seem to have a bias towards a certain conclusion and are fudging results to appease the money men. Whether anthropogenic climate change is real is still not proven categorically. There are climatologists, geologists and many others who disagree or attribute global warming to other factors. I myself believe we do contribute to global warming, but that doesn't make it so.
Name any scientists linked to climate science who has evidence peer reviewed to change the consensus?
Nonse as yet exist.
In a thread where there is clear evidence of abuse and collusion to remove dissenting voices from the peer review process, you post the above...
You really are quite delusional.
Just remember, there is no money in climate change...
It's also clear you have to be on the bandwagon with the required biases already to be invited...
.... which almost guarantees they will cherry pick facts to support the outcome most favourable to them.
Separate names with a comma.