The biggest scam in history

[PaulG.]

"Climategate". And to think this wasn't even a word a month ago. Stock up on the popcorn. IMO this is the biggest scam in history. I've believed this for years, but now the story has legs. Seems the Internet wasn't the only thing Al Gore "invented". If we can't trust scientists to be honest ...

[crelf]

IMO this is the biggest scam in history.

OCG!!!! One part of the Internet says it's true, another says it's false! What is the world coming to?!?! Who should we beleive?!?!

Ok - I'll bite - tell us why it's a scam. What's in it for the scientists that say it's true? ...and don't forget to include (preferrably reputable, if that's at all possible) references.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

"Climategate". And to think this wasn't even a word a month ago. Stock up on the popcorn. IMO this is the biggest scam in history. I've believed this for years, but now the story has legs. Seems the Internet wasn't the only thing Al Gore "invented". If we can't trust scientists to be honest ...

I can't find the old LV Champions blog but I did write an entry to address the great responsibility that we carry in modern society. I also mentioned this particular issue in this post from a year and a half ago;

http://lavag.org/topic/7352-earth-hour/

(See post #18).

In the blog I can not find I tried to cast the role of engineers and scietist of today playing the roles of "high priest" in earlier generations, where once the "people" turned to the high-preist to settle what is truth and what is not, now they turn to us.

So it is important for each of us to "do the right thing" whenever the "bones are cast into our laps".

Ben

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

OCG!!!! One part of the Internet says it's true, another says it's false! What is the world coming to?!?! Who should we beleive?!?!

Ok - I'll bite - tell us why it's a scam. What's in it for the scientists that say it's true? ...and don't forget to include (preferrably reputable, if that's at all possible) references.

A couple of ideas come to mind, sorry but no references to back me up.

1) ".... so this topic further investigation." or something to that effect is what I was taught is how all research papers should end. The explanation that came with that note to me is that nothing gets researched without funding and there will be no funding without a reason so ... more research dollars.

2) "Power" durring recent climate hearing in congress all of the pro-change people were scheduled early so that teir version would make the news before it was too late to go to press. The con arguement was little covered.

3) "Power" the meeting that is scheduled for helsinky (spelled very badly, sorry) include provision to enforce climate regualtions on a global scale effectively setting the first hints of a World Government with power to enforce climate laws.

4) No mention of atomic energy in all of the "solutions" unless we happen to be talking about a country other the the US and then it is OK fro them but not us.

5) According to an interview given by Lord Monkton (again bad spelling) indicated that they predicted phenomenon on which global warming was based (CO2 concentration increase inhibits radiating heat) has been measured using new satalite data and was shown to be false.

Just trying to help, and am full aware of how crazy i sound but still desire to help any one willing to read.

Ben

[Ton Plomp]

If we can't trust scientists to be honest

Well since there projects can be canceled every 6 months

OCG!!!! One part of the Internet says it's true, another says it's false! What is the world coming to?!?! Who should we beleive?!?!

Ok - I'll bite - tell us why it's a scam. What's in it for the scientists that say it's true? ...and don't forget to include (preferrably reputable, if that's at all possible) references.

If it's on the Internet it must be true!

Ton

[crelf]

A couple of ideas come to mind...

I figure what Paul G. is commenting on is that climate change is a "scam", and while you've got some interesting points, let's keep it on that very narrow topic as to discuss it with more clarity.

If I may summarise the portion of your post that's on topic: your answer to my "What's in it for the scientists that say it's true?" question is that their doomsday results increase the probabilty of their programmes' further funding. Got any references to back that up?

...sorry but no references to back me up.

Come back to me when you do. I'm not saying that you're wrong or right, but, as a semi-retired scientist, I'm sick of wild (and not so wild) accusations of my kind. Without merit these accusations are misguided at best, calumniative at worst.

[PaulG.]

A couple of ideas come to mind, sorry but no references to back me up.

1) ".... so this topic further investigation." or something to that effect is what I was taught is how all research papers should end. The explanation that came with that note to me is that nothing gets researched without funding and there will be no funding without a reason so ... more research dollars.

2) "Power" durring recent climate hearing in congress all of the pro-change people were scheduled early so that teir version would make the news before it was too late to go to press. The con arguement was little covered.

3) "Power" the meeting that is scheduled for helsinky (spelled very badly, sorry) include provision to enforce climate regualtions on a global scale effectively setting the first hints of a World Government with power to enforce climate laws.

4) No mention of atomic energy in all of the "solutions" unless we happen to be talking about a country other the the US and then it is OK fro them but not us.

5) According to an interview given by Lord Monkton (again bad spelling) indicated that they predicted phenomenon on which global warming was based (CO2 concentration increase inhibits radiating heat) has been measured using new satalite data and was shown to be false.

Just trying to help, and am full aware of how crazy i sound but still desire to help any one willing to read.

Ben

Indeed. "Anyone willing to read". THEY ERASED THE FRACKIN' DATA!

[BobHamburger]

Ugggh. The conservative pundits have gotten their clutches on yet another conspiracy. Here's how it always plays out:

1. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the blow-hards will have a field day

2. There will be endless counter-charges, recriminations, and nervous hand-wringing from all sides

3. The sources of their information will be shown to be bogus, fabricated, exaggerated, or otherwise found to be utterly without credibility, and then,

4. Without any attempt at correcting the public opinion or otherwise "un-ringing the bell," the yellow journalists will quickly and unapologetically rush right into the next big "breaking" scandal

You know, everybody just needs to shut the @#$%^ up already. If 0.1% of the effort expended on this nonsense were to be invested in productive endeavors, we could have cured cancer by now. OK... perhaps cancer is a stretch; how about coronary artery disease? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[hooovahh]

Conspiracy James is out of town this week so I'll be glad to fill the void.

XKCD: http://xkcd.com/258/

And just because it's Paul:

Every thing we ever know could all be lies. We know the earth is round because many different independent groups tell us it is, but I have never done any experimentation to determine if it is. What about atoms, and molecules and the periodic table of elements is that all made up? Could be I don't know for sure it isn't. For all I know computers could run off of fairy dust and moon beams, I've never built one from scratch, how do I know what makes it work?

Ultimately I don't know, I take all the information that is given to me and I formulate an opinion based on what I am told is fact from groups and organizations which may have a private agenda. I believe global warming is an issue we should be concerned. I may be completely wrong but I know that I don't have the technical data to backup hardly any claim without referencing someone else's work, which could be total crap.

[Daryl]

I figure what Paul G. is commenting on is that climate change is a "scam", and while you've got some interesting points, let's keep it on that very narrow topic as to discuss it with more clarity.

If I may summarise the portion of your post that's on topic: your answer to my "What's in it for the scientists that say it's true?" question is that their doomsday results increase the probabilty of their programmes' further funding. Got any references to back that up?

Come back to me when you do. I'm not saying that you're wrong or right, but, as a semi-retired scientist, I'm sick of wild (and not so wild) accusations of my kind. Without merit these accusations are misguided at best, calumniative at worst.

I'd say the 10 year global cooling trend is a pretty good clue.

[Anders Björk]

My opinion is that we are using too much resource in the industrial part of world in particular in the US but also in Europe! I think we all in the industrial world must lower our C02 (and other greenhouse gas such as N2O) emmisions. One should ask one self which has given us this right use this much resource.

Is it right that we use much of the resources while developing countries are using very little?

In the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway, wind-power is coming strong. Denmark has now one of the world largest windmill producers Westas, they were early out...

Fuels based on plants or trees will give a lot of new jobs, it under heavy development and its good it does not give an net contribution to CO2 since it is renewable.

Producing bio-gas from waste water is also very good and profitable idea and can be used for fuelling buses and trucks.

Remember it is not only a risk for the environment it is also political risk to be oil dependent when oil is running out.

What I do not get why there such great resistance to a more sustainable society when it will boost the economy and particular industrial jobs. It has already done so in countries that have chosen this path.

So I do not think its a scam!

There will always be CO2 skeptics and that is scientific sound. However, the main fact and theories supports the conclusion made by the United Nations IPCC.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Anders Björk

[PaulG.]

I can't believe so many otherwise intelligent PROGRAMMERS can be so flippant about cooking data, manipulating data, using "tricks" on data, hiding data and DELETING data for nefarious purposes.

Did I wake up in a parallel universe?

If this turns out to be the scam I believe it is the ramifications are stunning. I called this the biggest scam in history because in terms of monetary and political clout it IS. We are talking huge global financial and political consequences. Why? A bunch of elitist politicians and climatologists traded in their collective integrity so they wouldn't lose their funding, Nobel prizes and clout in the UN.

What bothers me the most about this is that we need to count on scientists to have a certain amount of integrity. What happens the next time a group of scientists cry wolf?

"A meteor is coming and it will destroy the earth!" "Oh, yea, sure, I remember 'climategate'".

"A new influenza has just mutated and it could kill billions!" "Oh, yea, sure, I remember 'climategate'".

"The earth REALLY IS warming, and it's OUR FAULT! We have to change our lifestyles NOW or we are ALL GOING TO DIE!" "Oh, yea, sure, I remember 'climategate'".

Everyone's ears and brains should have gone into alert mode when they stopped calling it "global warming" and started calling it "climate change". WTH is CLIMATE CHANGE?! What's up with that?! Otherwise intelligent people are buying this nonsense!!!

[jcarmody]

 never mind...

Edited November 30, 2009 by jcarmody

[Anders Björk]

I can't believe so many otherwise intelligent PROGRAMMERS can be so flippant about cooking data, manipulating data, using "tricks" on data, hiding data and DELETING data for nefarious purposes.

Did I wake up in a parallel universe?

If this turns out to be the scam I believe it is the ramifications are stunning. I called this the biggest scam in history because in terms of monetary and political clout it IS. We are talking huge global financial and political consequences. Why? A bunch of elitist politicians and climatologists traded in their collective integrity so they wouldn't lose their funding, Nobel prizes and clout in the UN.

What bothers me the most about this is that we need to count on scientists to have a certain amount of integrity. What happens the next time a group of scientists cry wolf?

Well you should note that the opposite side has much more money at there disposal! It is a lot of money in oil, coal and natural gas. Its not a bunch of scientist (IPCC) it the best at their fields from countries all over the world and summarize and recommend actions on best available knownledge. So the those scientist that say it is a scam has a larger integrity, do you really think so in general?

Edited November 30, 2009 by Anders Björk

[Francois Normandin]

I can't believe so many otherwise intelligent PROGRAMMERS can be so flippant about cooking data, manipulating data, using "tricks" on data, hiding data and DELETING data for nefarious purposes.

Paul, I think it's a big leap to think that because a few scientists have deleted data (if these affirmations have not been taken out of context), that all the climate scientists are covering the truth. You find a rotten apple, you expose it and take it out of the basket. You certainly don't throw the whole basket away.

Agreed, you can get funded for saying global warming exists. But I'm sure you can get grants for saying the opposite too... if not from government, then from other organizations. It's not all about money. As a guy that works in a research lab, I can tell you that bad ideas (even when funded) have a tendency to die quite fast. The fact that some ideas continue to be funded after so many years means there's credit to them. Scientists are very territorial... that means that the competition (i.e. the other group in that other institute across the ocean...) must have damn good arguments to prevent me from bearing down on them, because after all, I want to be the top guy... since I want the same grant money as the ones they're applying for, I'd better be! And believe me, peer reviewed grants are very competitive. If you come with false pretense or crazy ideas that just don't fit the facts, then you won't get it. (That's another way to look at Darwinism).

Yes there are probably more chances to get a grant if you try to find a way to explain climate change than if you try to find a proof it doesn't exist. But scientists are more clever than that. If you don't believe in global warming and still want some grants, apply for a grant to gather some data to explain global warming... and if you were right all along, the data will contradict global warming and you can show the world that you've got some data to corroborate your saying.

[Daklu]

What bothers me the most about this is that we need to count on scientists to have a certain amount of integrity.

I agree that this is the major issue that nobody is talking about.* Regardless of the ultimate cause of climate change, be it natural or man-made, or our specific political leanings, these scientists have clearly violated the public trust through their manipulation of the scientific process. From withholding data (in clear violation of the law) from people who might be critical of their work to threatening peer review publications as a way to prevent them from publishing contrarian viewpoints, these guys blatently overstepped the bounds of good science. This is completely and totally inexcusable. I've long been on the fence regarding human-induced climate change, but these emails cast a long shadow across climate change proponents. They also, unfortunately, reflect very poorly on the entire scientific community.

(*I did find one very good article where a climate researcher acknowledges the mistakes of the CRU.)

[Later]

After reading a bit more it appears the emails may not be the most condemning part of the hacked information. That would be what appears to be a readme file ("Harry_Read_Me") containing notes by a programmer working on the code of their mathematical model. There's a story on the CBS blog here.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Daklu

[ASTDan]

In regards to environmental issues I recently saw a PBS program of great interest

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/dustbowl/

It is about the Dust Bowl in the 1930's on the American Great Plains.

One of the causes was poor farming practices. The farmers were reluctant to adopt farming practices that encouraged soil conservation.

I think this has some parallels to the climate debate of today.

Dan

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

I agree that this is the major issue that nobody is talking about.* Regardless of the ultimate cause of climate change, be it natural or man-made, or our specific political leanings, these scientists have clearly violated the public trust through their manipulation of the scientific process. From withholding data (in clear violation of the law) from people who might be critical of their work to threatening peer review publications as a way to prevent them from publishing contrarian viewpoints, these guys blatently overstepped the bounds of good science. This is completely and totally inexcusable. I've long been on the fence regarding human-induced climate change, but these emails cast a long shadow across climate change proponents. They also, unfortunately, reflect very poorly on the entire scientific community.

(*I did find one very good article where a climate researcher acknowledges the mistakes of the CRU.)

[Later]

After reading a bit more it appears the emails may not be the most condemning part of the hacked information. That would be what appears to be a readme file ("Harry_Read_Me") containing notes by a programmer working on the code of their mathematical model. There's a story on the CBS blog here.

Thank you very much for that post!

You expressed my thought better than I could.

Going forward...

1) As Scieintist and engineers our collective integrety may be has been threatened.

2) I only see self-governance of our actions as a readily available mechanism to prevent further potential incidents.

3) We can urge our counter-parts to "come clean" and let them expose their errors.

4) We can do a better job of teaching what are the limitaions of our science.

5) We can speak out to those around us to help the general public come to understand that our works are subject to question and change over time (as we learn more) so SCIENCE can not be viewed as an absolute by which we can develop rules and and laws tht govern us.

Paul,

I want to thank you for breaking the ice on this topic. YOU are a better man than me.

Ben

[Daryl]

I can't believe so many otherwise intelligent PROGRAMMERS can be so flippant about cooking data, manipulating data, using "tricks" on data, hiding data and DELETING data for nefarious purposes.

Did I wake up in a parallel universe?

If this turns out to be the scam I believe it is the ramifications are stunning. I called this the biggest scam in history because in terms of monetary and political clout it IS. We are talking huge global financial and political consequences. Why? A bunch of elitist politicians and climatologists traded in their collective integrity so they wouldn't lose their funding, Nobel prizes and clout in the UN.

What bothers me the most about this is that we need to count on scientists to have a certain amount of integrity. What happens the next time a group of scientists cry wolf?

"A meteor is coming and it will destroy the earth!" "Oh, yea, sure, I remember 'climategate'".

"A new influenza has just mutated and it could kill billions!" "Oh, yea, sure, I remember 'climategate'".

"The earth REALLY IS warming, and it's OUR FAULT! We have to change our lifestyles NOW or we are ALL GOING TO DIE!" "Oh, yea, sure, I remember 'climategate'".

Everyone's ears and brains should have gone into alert mode when they stopped calling it "global warming" and started calling it "climate change". WTH is CLIMATE CHANGE?! What's up with that?! Otherwise intelligent people are buying this nonsense!!!

+1

[FLAnatic]

I'd say the 10 year global cooling trend is a pretty good clue.

Here are some interesting articles related to your statement. But all of us "intelligent programmers" are experts on the climate right?

http://arstechnica.c...he-beholder.ars

http://arstechnica.c...-statistics.ars

Edited December 1, 2009 by FLAnatic

[PaulG.]

Paul,

I want to thank you for breaking the ice on this topic. YOU are a better man than me.

Ben

You are welcome, Ben. But give some credit to the stomach flu. I was home sick with a nasty stomach virus yesterday so I had some extra time on my hands behind the computer. I don't know what made my stomach feel worse: the virus or diving into this story.

[Daryl]

Here are some interesting articles related to your statement. But all of us "intelligent programmers" are experts on the climate right?

http://arstechnica.c...he-beholder.ars

http://arstechnica.c...-statistics.ars

You took the "intelligent programmers" (that I didn't write in the first place, just agreed with the OP's point) thing out of context and used it in response to a different issue.

We could sit here all day long and post contradicting links without changing each others minds. Believe what you want, i'll do the same.

[FLAnatic]

You took the "intelligent programmers" (that I didn't write in the first place, just agreed with the OP's point) thing out of context and used it in response to a different issue.

We could sit here all day long and post contradicting links without changing each others minds. Believe what you want, i'll do the same.

From PaulG:

"can't believe so many otherwise intelligent PROGRAMMERS can be so flippant about cooking data, manipulating data, using "tricks" on data, hiding data and DELETING data for nefarious purposes."

The articles I linked to discuss the global cooling of the past 10 years argument which happened to be mentioned by you and are also related to the problem of manipulating data, and using tricks on data concerning the intelligent programmers quote.

Edited December 1, 2009 by FLAnatic

[Daryl]

From PaulG:

"can't believe so many otherwise intelligent PROGRAMMERS can be so flippant about cooking data, manipulating data, using "tricks" on data, hiding data and DELETING data for nefarious purposes."

The articles I linked to discuss the global cooling of the past 10 years argument which happened to be mentioned by you and are also related to the problem of manipulating data, and using tricks on data concerning the intelligent programmers quote.

Exactly. 2 different issues. You took my response to one issue and applied it to the other completely changing what I said.

have a nice day.

[hooovahh]

Exactly. 2 different issues. You took my response to one issue and applied it to the other completely changing what I said.

have a nice day.

\small crowd forms

"Fight Fight Fight Fight!"

\crowd size increases