Well it's been a few days, now, but it doesn't look like the dust is going to settle any time soon in the blogosphere. Sceptics have been suspicious about the integrity of the data mesh being used to "prove" Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), otherwise known as man-made global warming, and the motivations behind the alarmism being perpetuated by so-called "global warming scientists".

I've spent quite a bit of time over the last few days, examining commented Fortran code used to create the data meshes and draw graph plots, and reading email exchanges between scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (UEA CRU) and I must say I'm pretty sure, now, that something is seriously amiss.

Firstly, it seems that the data available to CRU scientists is poor in quality and is wholly inadequate for use to compute historical climate conditions, or subsequently project future climate conditions. The CRU's own programmer clearly documents this.

Secondly, the emails document clear intent to tamper with the scientific process of peer reviewing the science of AGW by actively pressuring scientific journals to reject papers by known sceptics, discussing using bullying tactics to manipulate coverage at the BBC's Weather (to keep Paul Hudson quiet) and silence questioning voices there, etc.

Thirdly, the emails document agreements between CRU scientists to delete email correspondence AND data, rather than submit to requests for them under the Freedom Of Information Act.

Relevant links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pau ... ppened-to-global-wa.shtml

http://bishophill.squarespace. ... /climate-cuttings-33.html

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

I'm interested to know how people feel about the leaked information, about the prospect of being car-taxed on what could possibly be sexed-up alarmism, and about the importance of scientific integrity, good science, bad science and the impact of the lure of grant money on scientific endeavours.

Has policy driven science, rather than science driven policy?

Of course, if the government can find a way to get more money out of the taxpayers to pay for its second flats and porn DVDs, it will. The government is made up of human beings, and human beings are greedy and selfish bastards who do virtually nothing but protect their own interests.

Although using dubious evidence to justify taking money from people is bad, I still think its generally a good idea to be cleaning up the environment a bit (what harm can it do?), just not obessively and inflexibly. Just small things, not forcing people to pay taxes for disputed reasons. If it does turn out that humans aren't causing the Earth's climate to warm, thats no excuse to go back to dumping poison into the water and the air.

And we're still going to run out of fuel eventually.

I don't think this should surprise anyone.

Quote from 5haz :

Although using dubious evidence to justify taking money from people is bad, I still think its generally a good idea to be cleaning up the environment a bit (what harm can it do?), just not obessively and inflexibly.

I'm a big supporter of finding alternative energy sources. I love the idea of wind turbines and capturing solar energy. These are noble goals, and I certainly don't have issues with cleaning up our act.

My issue is that I don't like being lied to. I don't like the idea of paying taxes for science that lacks integrity, I don't like the idea of scientists being paid by the government to reach pre-determined conclusions.. tell me the truth.

Quote from SamH :

I'm a big supporter of finding alternative energy sources. I love the idea of wind turbines and capturing solar energy. These are noble goals, and I certainly don't have issues with cleaning up our act.

My issue is that I don't like being lied to. I don't like the idea of paying taxes for science that lacks integrity, I don't like the idea of scientists being paid by the government to reach pre-determined conclusions.. tell me the truth.

Well yeah, exactly.

I did hear of some research in the news a while back that was skeptical of global warming, 'cept it was sponsored by Exxon if I remember correctly, who knows.

The truth will definately out one day, may have to wait a few hundred years though.

On the topic of clean power:

There are serious hurdles regarding the practicality of wind and solar power. Primarily, they're not steady nor predictable at all, and AFAIK there is no way to cheaply buffer the output.

Your typical fossil-fuel plant is capable of providing a steady output and may ramp up depending upon demand. Then you have other peaker plants that only run when demand is very high. No buffering required.

I strongly support nuclear power as a clean solution, but unfortunately so many people have a deep-seated fear of it, particularly here in the US.

I've also been following this heavily for the last few days.

Probably the best thread I've found so far which details the behind the scenes stalling on FOI requests is this one, over at WUWT. If you read through it and follow the comments, you can get a good sense of just what's been going on at the CRU. It's very revealing, and it's not pretty. How these people can call themselves scientists I have no idea...

It's a huge mess Sam, an enormous pandoras box has just been opened. Of course the mainstream news outlets most wedded to the climate alarmist orthodoxy aren't touching it. Realclimate has gone into damage control overdrive.

I'm afraid this one's not going to come out in the wash...

Not surprised... I really recommend this documentary to all of you. Yo don't have to believe everything you hear (in any documentary, not only in this one) but is nice to know other versions of the same problem and then make your own decision. I also saw "The global dimming" recently, recommended as well.

Forbin, I must admit reservations about nuclear power. Fission is filthy dirty, there's no real debate about that. Waste disposal is hugely problematic and the risk of runaway reactions is ever-present. In fact, Three-Mile had an accident just the other day.

Once we have mastered the technology so that we can contain the plasma for a fusion reaction, THEN I will be wholly on-board with nuclear. Until then, however, to me it's simply not worth the long-term risk to solve a short-term problem.

Electrik Kar, what concerns me is that the main media outlets don't seem to want to get anywhere near it. Not even those historically keen to invest in investigative journalism. And worse still, Glenn Beck has latched on to it and is using it as a vehicle to bash Obama (who may well have been just as hood-winked as the rest of us by UEA CRU and the IPCC). Glenn Beck is a delusional moron, and could well be the kiss of death for the whole truth/exposé.

Quote from SamH :

Forbin, I must admit reservations about nuclear power. Fission is filthy dirty, there's no real debate about that. Waste disposal is hugely problematic and the risk of runaway reactions is ever-present. In fact, Three-Mile had an accident just the other day.

I'll agree that waste disposal is a problem, but I think that's in much the same way that air polution is a problem with fossil-fuel plants. At least nuclear waste can be easily localized. The same cannot be said of air polution.

However, runaway reactions resulting in meltdown are much less of a threat in modern, passively safe reactors.

Also:

Quote :

A positive void coefficient means that the reactivity increases as the void content inside the reactor increases due to increased boiling or loss of coolant; for example, if the coolant acts as a neutron absorber. If the void coefficient is large enough and control systems do not respond quickly enough, this can form a positive feedback loop which can quickly boil all the coolant in the reactor. This happened in the Chernobyl disaster. The construction of reactors with a positive void coefficient is illegal in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient

Quote :

Electrik Kar, what concerns me is that the main media outlets don't seem to want to get anywhere near it. Not even those historically keen to invest in investigative journalism. And worse still, Glenn Beck has latched on to it and is using it as a vehicle to bash Obama (who may well have been just as hood-winked as the rest of us by UEA CRU and the IPCC). Glenn Beck is a delusional moron, and could well be the kiss of death for the whole truth/exposé.

It's very worrying - and what's most worrying is that the media seemingly most keen to have this all smoothed over as quickly as possible are those percieved to be our most respected. There's a deafening silence there, for sure. I agree that in the short term people like Beck and Limbaugh shouting out these revelations may be somewhat damaging, but this is bigger than that I feel. The nature of this game has suddenly changed for ever, the whole lot's going to get rejumbled- it's hardly begun.

Quote from SamH :

Forbin, I must admit reservations about nuclear power. Fission is filthy dirty, there's no real debate about that. Waste disposal is hugely problematic and the risk of runaway reactions is ever-present. In fact, Three-Mile had an accident just the other day.

The waste issue is over exaggerated. Yes, nuclear power fission produces waste that is hard to get rid of, but the thing is that it produces a very small amount of it. Part of the waste product can also be re-used to provide more power.

Other than that nuclear reactors just emit water vapors from the cooling systems.

I have always questioned that we as humans have no where near enough brain power to calculate the almost infinate complexity of global climate patterns. The fact we base climate policy on the decisions of people that can't predict the weather in the next 5 minutes let alone 10 years has always alarming.

I'm not surprised that some of those scientists fiddled with their results.
... Just like I'm not surprised that some sceptics fiddled with their results.
... Just like I'm not surprised that everybody on this freaking planet fiddles with whatever they do to put themselves in a better light.
... And neither should you be.

Vain

Quote from Vain :

... Just like I'm not surprised that everybody on this freaking planet fiddles with whatever they do to put themselves in a better light.

When I fiddle with myself everyone screams and then the police turn up.

And you shouldn't be surprised of that.
Just like I said.

Vain

Quote from Electrik Kar :

It's very worrying - and what's most worrying is that the media seemingly most keen to have this all smoothed over as quickly as possible are those percieved to be our most respected. There's a deafening silence there

This is one of the reasons why the internet rules (and why governments fear it so much), while media outlets are probrably being gagged, in forums all over the internet there is uproar and the news is spreading.

Its like with the Trafigura incident, the internet helped things spread while Trafigura was trying to gag the media.

Quote from Intrepid :

I have always questioned that we as humans have no where near enough brain power to calculate the almost infinate complexity of global climate patterns. The fact we base climate policy on the decisions of people that can't predict the weather in the next 5 minutes let alone 10 years has always alarming.

Just because you don't understand weather prediction, or the reasons why short term forecasts are subject to more error than long term predictions, doesn't mean nobody does.

Essentially it boils down to - daily or even weekly predictions focusing on very specific outcomes (how much cloud cover, chance of rain, strength/direction of wind etc) is almost impossible, and I'd suggest (albeit with no actual evidence) that computerisation has actually made this worse.
Long term - not just next year, but next decade or next century or next millenium - is based on averages and generalities rather than specifics, and is allowed a much large error factor before coming 'inaccurate', to the point where we can predict it with a degree of certainty.

The other side, of couse, is that we find out pretty quickly if tomorrows forecast is wrong, but forget about specific predictions made 100 years earlier

Quote from tristancliffe :

Just because you don't understand weather prediction, or the reasons why short term forecasts are subject to more error than long term predictions, doesn't mean nobody does.

Essentially it boils down to - daily or even weekly predictions focusing on very specific outcomes (how much cloud cover, chance of rain, strength/direction of wind etc) is almost impossible, and I'd suggest (albeit with no actual evidence) that computerisation has actually made this worse.
Long term - not just next year, but next decade or next century or next millenium - is based on averages and generalities rather than specifics, and is allowed a much large error factor before coming 'inaccurate', to the point where we can predict it with a degree of certainty.

The other side, of couse, is that we find out pretty quickly if tomorrows forecast is wrong, but forget about specific predictions made 100 years earlier

I am not saying we shouldn't investigate, make predictions etc... but to present these findings as if they were fact I have always questioned. Kids are being taught they will all die in a firey ball of hell if they don't turn off the lightbulb. This doesn't sit well with me.

Granted, pretending predictions are fact, or that downright lies are fact, is plain wrong. I'll agree with you there. But we must be careful not to go the other way and claim that predictions are all useless/wrong in all cases.

Quote from SamH :

I've spent quite a bit of time over the last few days, examining commented Fortran code

I'm worried about you!!!!! You'll be on to PL1 next!

Is this all part of the NWO?

Quote from SamH :

I'm a big supporter of finding alternative energy sources. I love the idea of wind turbines and capturing solar energy. These are noble goals, and I certainly don't have issues with cleaning up our act.

My issue is that I don't like being lied to. I don't like the idea of paying taxes for science that lacks integrity, I don't like the idea of scientists being paid by the government to reach pre-determined conclusions.. tell me the truth.

Too true. You also know the UK government doesn't act on what their specialist advisers recommend!!!!

Quote from tristancliffe :

But we must be careful not to go the other way and claim that predictions are all useless/wrong in all cases.

This is the argument for "good science", and unfortunately the activities at the UEA CRU have undermined the integrity of, not just climate research, all scientific research.

I regard the UEA's activities as a cancer in (one must assume, until proven wrong) the otherwise good, broader arena of science. I think it's essential to expose the cancer of politically driven (directly DEFRA/government funded) "scientific" conclusions and cut it out, but I agree that we must proceed cautiously. No need to throw the baby out with the filthy dirty bathwater.

Right now, we need the truth about where climate research science really is. ALL of it. The wider scientific community, for its own sake, should rally to support a genuinely independent and critical review/enquiry. Otherwise confidence in all research sciences will be severely undermined by these few well-funded, contaminated excuses for scientists.

Quote from StableX :

I'm worried about you!!!!! You'll be on to PL1 next!

Ugh! I did APL for a day, once. PL/1 doesn't look too bad! I find it ironic that popular languages have become even more obfuscated since those days, rather than less so.

Quote from StableX :

Is this all part of the NWO?

I don't think it relates to NWO, tbh. I feel a bit uncomfortable with the whole AGW business because it's all a bit bum-about-face. I don't hold with conspiracy theories like 9/11, NWO etc., but the whole climate change scepticism amounts to a "conspiracy conspiracy" theory. Alarmism from the top down, rather than the usual conspiracy theories being subterfuge from the top down

Quote from StableX :

Too true. You also know the UK government doesn't act on what their specialist advisers recommend!!!!

Ahh yeah, we've just been there with the cannabis/tobacco debacle, haven't we? LOL!

Did I pick the worst ever time to go to the UEA? Perhaps...

erm yes jack lol

Quote from SamH :

....
Has policy driven science, rather than science driven policy?

The former has always been the case. Just look at recent events surrounding the governments chief science advisors sacking.

Science has always been the pawn of business and government. I'm not at all surprised to hear that the "science" of climate change has been tainted by people with agendas.

GM crops is another case in point.

Long live the ludites !!