Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[Cort Haus]

I'd been looking forward to reading Mobius still demanding mass-extermination of eco-sceptics in the face of the exposure of data-rigging and suppression of dissenting scientists by the alarmist eco-fascists.

[Drake Tungsten]

It was just some scientists saying rude things in private about dumbass climate change deniers. Why make a thread about such a non-issue?

[KrazyHorse]

It was just some scientists saying rude things in private about dumbass climate change deniers. Why make a thread about such a non-issue?

QFT

I sure hope they never expose the emails I've exchanged with my collaborators about the ****ers who scooped me 18 months ago.

[loinburger]

Or the emails I sent to my collaborators about the ****ers who rejected our paper because we didn't cite the paper written by the ****ers.

[Kitschum]

****ers

[Cort Haus]

It was just some scientists saying rude things in private about dumbass climate change deniers. Why make a thread about such a non-issue?

If it was a non-issue they would release their ****ing data that they've been making up.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you have any evidence that proves these scientists have been falsifying data?

[Straybow]

Yeah, the data. There've been plenty of scientists disputing the data, the findings, and the conclusions. The IPCC, the CRU, and the rest of the alarmists have been protected from any real peer review by political correctness.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah, the data.

[Felch]

Do you have any evidence that proves these scientists have been falsifying data?

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years. - Mick Kelly

That's not falsification, but it is hiding contrary evidence. Certainly an example of poor ethics on the part of CRU.

Largely that's a lot of what I've seen posted on blogs. These scientists gave up on finding the truth in an impartial manner and decided that they would cut corners and blackball anybody who thought differently. The most damning quote I've seen is about excluding a colleague from the AGU.

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. - Tom Wigley

That sort of pettiness is disgraceful. I'm sure if you looked through anybody's emails you'd find a lot of dirt. I don't think for a moment that the skeptics want anybody looking through their emails. And that's the saddest part of all this. Instead of simply looking for an answer to a question, everybody reverts to some adolescent bull****, like the world's top climatologists want to go back to high school all over again. People should be focused on what's actually going on, and applying the scientific method to the questions, instead of trying to score cheap political points.

[Wezil]

The money has followed the politics.

[Dr Strangelove]

Here's what the CRU has to say about it:

https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

In the charts at the bottom of the page the red and green lines are from CRU members, the blue and black lines are from other sources.

[Darius871]

Do you have any evidence that proves these scientists have been falsifying data?

I'm not going to get into this mess since I frankly couldn't care less, but FWIW it's more difficult (though perhaps not "impossible" as the Murdoch Times would have us think) for skeptics to root out flaws in adjustment of data that in part no longer exists...

Climate change data dumped

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

[KrazyHorse]

Darius, that's not particularly surprising. Nobody in any field releases raw large datasets, and if there's too much of it it's usually abandoned after it goes through initial processing.

Science is not law; we aren't attempting to prove stuff to "skeptics" beyond a reasonable doubt.

[KrazyHorse]

From direct personal experience this is true of both WMAP and Tevatron data, and will be true of LHC data...