/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2540177
Wasn't faked, the public just doesn't understand statistics. The only "scandal" involved was the scientists revealing their personal opinions in their emails, but the data and associated analyses are sound.

>>2540198
I think it was faked.

Glaciers and icecaps are melting faster than they're being replenished.

The fact whatever is causing this isn't resulting in higher temperatures everywhere else is what was confusing.

They assumed the sea levels would rise, but the reality is that more liquid water means more gaseous water means more severe weather patterns, cloud cover, and, thus, temperature variations, not uniform heating.

>>2540210
good for you

>>2540177
The emails were entirely ignored by more or less everyone. The "independent" investigation into them that the unversities did was a whitewash as they asked the fucking guys who wrote them which emails they should investigate.

The email data included the adjustment code used to generate the hockey stick graph and other adjustments. The functionality of the program more or less discarded the input and just printed a hockey stick. And that was only a sample of how ugly things were.

A lot of climatologists were faking data, destroying or ignoring data that contradicted their "models", etc.

Essentially, they've become so beholden to models, they ignore empirical data if it doesn't fit with the magical fairy tales they made up 3 years ago say should be playing out.

sigh

it amazes how so many sheeple still global warming is happening. more like global SCAMing. listen morans, the climate gate faggots are using "tricks" to pump up the alterntaive technology industry to get back at the oil companies. well im not an idiot whos going to fall for that!! it fucking snows all the time brah, no global warming. global warming people are just a bunch of nuts who dont understand basic science.

>>2540227
The majority of sea level rise is not due to glacial melt. It's due to the warming of water that is within a thermocline that is 4C, which is denser than ice. The expansion coefficient when that water warms up just one degree is far greater than adding freshwater melt.

>>2540241
>implying tricking people into funding alternative energy sources is not a good thing

Nuclear and solar power are fucking bomb.

>>2540177
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
It's by far not all of them, but it's the good stuff, quite a lot of it.

In b4 fifty people that refuse to read them saying the science is settled and the debate is over.

>>2540242
*by ice I meant denser than water less than 4C - brain fart

>>2540227
Nice non-falsifiable you have there...

only pussies think global warming is happening so they can justify their hippie alternative lifestyle. well not in my america!!

>I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

>His reluctance to report a “null result” (namely, that the data do not show anything significant) is extremely disturbing, as it flies in the face of standard scientific practice, which requires that all results be reported.


Damn that's abhorrent. "I didn't get the results I wanted and I'm having trouble spinning the data to fit my needs."

>>2540241
troll

>>2540243
got troll'd

If you just want to know what it is, you can just read about it on Wikipedia.

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

>>2540245
>Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
The CAUSE?!?! This is fucking science and research, and this guy is responding to someone who is admitting to fudging data saying they're doing good work for "the cause"
>I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

>Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW


I don't even have the words

>>2540265
implying wikipedia isn't biased

http://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate

>>2540276
>go to link
>see second picture
>Image from NASA showing a record snowfall in the western United States on December 9, 2009, contradicting Gore's claim.

>>2540265
no, you should probably just read the fucking emails yourselves
>>2540245

>I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” …

Seems some of the people involved were VERY troubled by what was happening.

Understandably so.

Global SHAMmers just like the feel of l gores cock which is why they still push out this bullshit. ahhahahaha derp derp if global warming is happening how come its getting colder?

global warming has SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be false time and time again. WHATS NEXT THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT HAHAHAHAHA.

can the people who believe in global scamming please just admit that there crazy? or at least that there just doing it for atttention?

>>2540243
>Implying tricking people to believe 6000 year old earth is not a good science

>>2540293
>Implying Gore's opinion didn't come after the science was already well-established

>>2540177
The president of the royal society would like to explain to you the ins and outs of climate gate and why the science is sound. Please take him up on his kind offer

>also MFW he rips the shit out of some hack telegraph journalist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y4yql/Horizon_20102011_Science_Under_Attack/

guys dont you know its unchristian to belive in global warming? seriously man cant affect the planet and its arrogant to think we can.

pic is mfw when you guys are being unchristian

>THEY BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING!!!
>OMG THAT IS SO PATHETIC
>HAHAHAHA WHAT A BUNCH OF HIPSTERS

Sure is samefag in here.

>>2540298

everyone on this thread needs to go here:

climate.nasa.gov

i know most of you fucks are not scientists (i bet most people who deny global warming have never had any contact with higher education), but there are GRAPHS and nice PICTURES you can look at that won't melt your inbred brains.

>>2540306
>>2540306
Read the emails yourself you dipshit
Stop listening to shitty excuses from people trying whitewash their lies

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

see

>>2540258

>>2540271
>>2540289

man /sci/ sucks if all were discussing is psuedo science like global warming. have fun with your tin foil hats nerds. i mean global warming?is this fucking /x/ or something?

>>2540324
>get caught lying
>emails prove that all models and graphs are wholly untrustworthy as they have been roundly manipulated to match the "models" because the data doesn't pan out
>ad hominem

Just read the emails yourself, you turd.

>>2540293
>>2540293
You now realise this man will never be president

;__;

only hispters belive in global shititing to justify their fucking hybrid cars and their stupid little carbon footprints. just another trendy fad. well im not falling for it.

>>2540340
Thank god
Can you imagine if he'd been president after 9/11?
In monotone voice: "My fellow Americans, I have surrendered the United States to Al-Qaeda effective immediately."

>>2540327
Troll

If not then you are most certainly not a scientist understand none of the data (let alone investigated it) you have simply read and misinterpreted the emails. Now i am not a scientist, i am a physics undergrad and i am currently sitting a module on climate science and environmental physics so i have only a basic understanding, however i am certain i understand it far Far better than you do.

Oh and just out of interest what brand of tin foil, do you use for your hat?

Global warming is nothing but armchair speculation.

>>2540362
gore? more like WHORE

why cant you crazy people just admit that global warming is a scam?
tsk tsk tsk how sad

>>2540373
butthurt and mad? oh yes

sigh grow up and realize that you're being lied to.

>>2540338
holy fuck, why are downies allowed access to computers?

not ALL scientists work for the same places and with the same data to build the same charts you turdmunching neanderthal. is it really that hard for you to believe that average temperatures have increased <2 deg. Fahrenheit over the past 130 years?

are you too stupid to understand basic physics and chemistry?

and the most baffling question: why the fuck haven't you been sterilized yet?

>>2540391
>he still doesnt get it

Why are people arguing the nature of global warming itself and hot its source?

>>2540417
I'm feeling warmer.

>>2540177
They didn't fake their research. They just
1) obfuscated the data that didn't support their theories (some would say agenda)
2) maneuvered to exclude dissenters from the scientific process
3) tried to discredit journals that fell out of their control.
4) launched the propaganda websites like realclimate.org to try to influence public opinion.

i must say i am impressed by how this board has responded to trolls who keep insisting global warming is real. good job everyone

>>2540413
Sorry, not*.

OP FUCK YOU GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A HOAX. GO FUCKING DIE.

smart people: question global warming and reconize that man is too small to change the planet

DUMB people: belive whatever there told so that they can buy hybrid cars

learn the difference.

>>2540435
Exactly like evolutionists who excommuniate creationists who question the official dogma.

>>2540452
mad butthurt and jelly that his tinfoil hat is useless and will not protect him from common sence. hahahaha

>>2540452

There was literally no evidence of any wrongdoing of any sort in the emails. Some phrases looked kind of suspicious out of context, and people just ran away with that.

The whole thing was a result of the worst kind of media sensationalism.

>>2540440
mostly due to the influx of people on this board that have no idea what science is.

but what can you expect, this is 4chan.

>>2540455
>>2540455

HURR DURR I KNOW BETTER THAN SCIENCE CUS I"M SMART

>>2540472
>hasn't read a single one of the emails
>is just vomitting up talking points

Dude, some of the people INVOLVED in the emails were writing IN THE EMAILS THEMSELVES that what was going on was wrong/unethical/etc.

You obviously haven't even glanced at them.

Even though there's links on this page. Shit, man, there's QUOTES on this page about the wrongdoing

>>2540472
It's also ironic that the same people going "hurr durr dont let scientists tell you what to think" abandoned their critical thinking in a hurry when newspapers started telling them what they wanted to hear.

>>2540455
smart people: question blowing up the moon and reconize that man is too small to nuke the moon

DUMB people: belive whatever there told so that they can blow up moon

learn the difference.

HAHAHAHAAHAHA THE FACT THAT YOU CUNTS SERIOSULY THINK MANBEARPIG KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT SCIENCE OR THAT GLOBAL SCAMMING IS REAL IS HILARIOUS. WOW


WOW

>>2540472
Dude. In the emails, they explicitly say they wish to whitewash evidence that is contrary to what they wanted to find, they blacklisted journalists who weren't writing what they wanted them to, they even admit to phonying up numbers to sound more credible.

Read. The. Emails.

But no, you don't have the courage to look and realize that the talking points you're vomiting up are complete bullshit.

>>2540491
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY

Watch it. You'll learn something.

Context is important and you are ignoring it.

Mars is warming at the same rate as earth.

Problem Al Gore?

>>2540506
dude, stop. it's embarssing.

you're just making a fool out of yourself at this point.

>>2540525
i only posted once lol

>>2540506
>>2540508
>>2540491

why do i get the feeling that most of the vehement deniers in this thread are the same person?

Climate gate is a big fucking joke

This video explains how silly it all is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

>>2540513
No, wrong, you don't get to post whitewashing bullshit youtube videos in an effort to spin things.

You're right, context is important, so take off your blinders and READ THE EMAILS.

Which I know, for a fact, you have never done. Read them. listen to the people involved express distress at what their colleagues are doing. Listen to them admit manipulation of the media and their reports.

But you won't.

You don't have the courage.

>hey, this thread looks interesting
>2:30pm EST
>HURR GLOBAL WRAMING HOAX LOL MANBEARPIGMANBEARPIG

Has anyone calculated what the effect of what burning all known hydrocarbon reserves would be?

My guess is that it still wont be enough to make the world uninhabitable, and after that the carbon cycle will clean things up rather quickly.

The fact is that I can't even say in public that I don't believe that Global Warning is true. Because of the mainstream dogma ?
No. Because of that :
>>2540506
>>2540455
>>2540309
>>2540293

>>2540538
>can't even properly determine samefags
Sad.
Why do I get the feeling that the everyone who adamantly refuses to read the emails but then talks about reading them "in context" is all the same person?

It's interesting that the only people who defend this are the ones who haven't read any of the emails, let alone all of them.

This is typical human psychology, finding selective evidence that conforms with your view of the world but refusing to hear anything contrary.

>>2540553
New data indicates higher CO2 content is a result of warming, not a cause.

>>2540542
this guy claims the scientists were not being bad

>>2540546

I have read the emails. and you're grossly misrepresenting what they actually say.

The earth is getting slightly warmer as we're leaving what is known as the little ice age. The "man made" part of this including forcings may be something like 0.02°c, entirely insignificant that is.

The rest is extreme alarmist hype that have long ago left the field of science and have become religion.

And just like i don't bother arguing with creationists or the "save earth-destroy mankind"/envirofascist crowd i can't be arsed to join the debate. As i fancy myself a scientists, not a politician(ie, this is not something a debate will "win")

>>2540572
>[citation needed]

>>2540546
There were multiple fucking investigations into the emails and they all came to the conclusion that the scientists had done nothing wrong. The only criticism was that the scientists were insufficiently open, but there is no evidence of any dishonesty or bad science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty

You are letting your bullshit preconcieved opinions twist the facts.

>>2540594

>>2540245
>>2540327

... http://assassinationscience.com/
Given the source, I feel that this analysis is untrustworthy at best.

>>2540306
I saw this too. Good watch.

Also, OP? Bravo, good sir. Whatever possible reason you may have had for posting this thread is lost between trolls trollin' trolls.

>>2540606

>>2540542
>>2540542
>>2540542
that was funny

>>2540606
>>/b/ is that way

>>2540583
I'm misrepresenting them? I'm posting some of them verbatim in this thread (and you are ignoring them).

>>2540594
Uh, no, you do realize the "investigators" asked the people who wrote the emails which ones they should investigate right? There was no independent investigation whatsoever.

>>2540594
>The "independent" investigation into them that the unversities did was a whitewash as they asked the fucking guys who wrote them which emails they should investigate.

From earlier in this thread. Just because i get my friends to bear false witness doesn't make me innocent.

>>2540611
>Given the source, I feel that this analysis is untrustworthy at best.

Don't read the analysis, read the emails themselves. They're all the damning evidence you need.

Climategate: the reason no one will ever trust the "science" of global warming ever again.

>>2540611
>Given the source, I feel that this analysis is untrustworthy at best.

It's by a PHD in physics. But even if Adolf Hitler himself did it doesn't mean it would automagically become false.
L2SCIENCE

>>2540626
From what I've garnered out of the emails, Mike Mann is essentially evil, working purely for an agenda, and anything that man has even peer-reviewed is in question.
Ed Cook, however, seems to be of the highest integrity. In fact, when he demands that Mann behave in a manner that is one of integrity, Mann seems angry and annoyed.
I've never seen such a weasily little douchebag in all my life.

ITT: global scammers are mad that real hardworking ordinary americans are calling them out on their bullshit

real hardworking americans:1
lazy fake americans: 0

>>2540641
>>2540641
Jesus christ just look at this part.
Mike Mann here tells people to change their models so they can blatantly ignore and wash away the Medieval Warm Period

>I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2000 years, rather than the usual 1000 years, addresses a good earlier point that Jonathan Overpeck made … that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”, even if we don’t yet have data available that far back.

even though there's no data going back that far. So they decide, before having data, to "contain" the Medieval Warm Period (ie = ignore it).

>>2540641

guess you didnt actually read the emails.

>>2540664
>>2540641
And here's Mike Mann again impugning himself.
The journal Climate Research published a rebuttal to a paper, and Mann didn't like it.
Director of Climate Research replied with:

"I have received and studied the material requested.
Conclusions:
1) The reviewers consulted (four for each manuscript) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful evaluations.
2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions.
3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly. "


Seems pretty fucking reasonable.

Mann's response?

>It seems clear we have to go above him. I think that the community should, as Mike Hulme has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels—reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute.
Wow.

Someone publishes a paper you don't like, the journal says they published with integrity and the paper was properly edited...so you blackmail them.

>>2540664

The reason was because of the dispute over the "mid-evil warming period" why you ask?

Because the MEWP turned out to be bull shit, the estimate of the temputure of the time was taking from tree rings. A method proven useless in the 1950's

>>2540664
Not "they". Just Mike Mann.
He's obviously wholly corrupt.

>>2540676
The estimates aren't bullshit, bro, the historical evidence proves this.

Oh, but whereever could you have gotten the idea that the MWP is bullshit? Let's seeee....


>A 2009 study by Michael Mann et al. finds that the MWP shows "warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally".[21]

Oh look at that. It's Michael Mann again.

>>2540676
Every temperature graph you see over 2000 year time frame is taken from tree rings. The (fallacious) claim that changes now are happening faster than past changes are based on tree ring-based graphs.

>>2540676
>>2540664
>Michael Mann again

mind
fucking
blown

>>2540676
Mann used those same tree rings in his bullshit "hockey graph"
But now that they're suddenly inconvenient you get to call them bad science
While at the same time saying the hockey graph is perfect and infallible

Nice

>>2540664
Holy shit this is incredible.
First he decides, as the emails show, that he's going to prove the MWP is false so that those pesky facts can stop getting in the way of his agenda and then here >>2540698 he's actually allowed to publish a paper attempting to do just that.

He decided years before he had any data what he wanted the conclusion to be, and he's allowed to publish papers about this? That's appalling.

I disagree with you guys. I admit that Miami Vice was a complete bullshit, but Heat and Public Enemis were great.

its nice to see tha global scammers have nothing to say. god will take care fo the planet. i can do whatever the fuck i want.

it's not "global warming" anymore it's "climate change"

And so the people trying to defend the emails completely vanish as it becomes apparent just how appallingly fucked up the whole situation was. I can't say I'm surprised.
The evidence that these people engaged in widespread misconduct (spreaheaded by that monster Mike Mann) is pretty obvious

At least now I know whose names to look for on articles relating to climatology. Ed Cook will always be trusted. Mann, on the other hand, is abhorrent.

Just go to the October 26, 2003 email section. It's appalling:
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

>>2540775
>go to the October 26, 2003 email section
Holy. Shit.
>Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. It’s clear that Energy and Environment is being run by the baddies—only a shill for industry would have republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to Climate Research without even editing it. Now apparently they’re at it again…
This is insane. They're "baddies" because they publish articles he doesn't like? This is the second time this guy is seeing anyone publishing an article he doesn't like as being somehow evil. The fuck is wrong with him? And then he says:
>Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.

WITHOUT READING THE PAPER!!!

He hasn't even fucking read the paper at this point and he's going on like this.

Yeah he'll take care of you like he did his only begotten son

>>2540760
Next it's going to be "extreme weather event frequency change". But that's already been proven false, so maybe not.

I love this email because:

>I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uninformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by “for” and “against” global warming proponents. However, if an “independent group” such as you guys at the Climatic Research Unit could make a statement as to whether the McIntyre and McKitrick effort is truly an “audit”, and whether they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.

The author of the email, Ray Bradley, himself is showing how bullshit all their claims of being "independent" are. He knows it's just bullshit words used to cover-up the whitewashing they do.

But then, when all this shit comes out, they have their "independent" investigation...which was done by Mann's friends, who asked him which emails they should "investigate".

Just like how they did "independent research".

>>2540760
Yeah, it just shows how fucking stupid the public is, they even have to change the name because some banana-peeling idiots can't wrap their pea brains around the fact that climate doesn't equal weather.

>>2540792
>This is insane. They're "baddies" because they publish articles he doesn't like? This is the second time this guy is seeing anyone publishing an article he doesn't like as being somehow evil. The fuck is wrong with him? And then he says:

Wrong.
The Soon and Baliunas paper is SO full of bad science and is flawed on pretty much every account. Hell, half the editors of the journal the published it resigned when they weren't allowed to protest the paper's publishing.

You know nothing about the peer review process or science in general and I'll thank you to fuck off to a different board, you worthless piece of cancer.

>>2540811
Yeah, where's that "Mega Epic Hurricane season!" that we hear about every summer?

I think I've been hearing that since high school, so at least since 2001-2002.

And it never appears. In 2010, hilariously, there was a decline in hurricane activity.

But just wait, you'll hear it all leading up to the summer of 2011.

And then nothing will happen.

Again.

>>2540830
You do realize he's writing these emails BEFORE READING THE PAPER.

Your argument comes years AFTER reading the paper.

He was calling the paper "baddies" before it was published. He was saying it was all lies before it was published.

HE HAD NOT READ THE PAPER YET.

>>2540830
>say something's full of bad science
>offer no proof
Look, it doesn't matter whether the paper was good or not, that isn't the point those emails demonstrate. They show that scum like Mike Mann are willing to discredit a paper they've never read.
How can you trust anything this "scientist" (he seems more like a lobbyist) says after you see him blatantly telling people to discredit a paper neither he nor anyone else has read yet?

That would be like Roger Ebert saying "I haven't seen this movie yet, but boy, is it a piece of shit."
Or the New York Times Book Review: "We haven't read a single one of the books we're reviewing this month, but they're all just total garbage."
That's literally what he did. In his own words.

Wow, Phil Jones is a scumbag too.
After a skeptic named John Daly died he said:
>n an odd way this is cheering news! One other thing about the Climatic Change paper—just found another email—is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to provide all the data and computer programs!! According to legal advice, Intellectual Property Rights overrides this.

So, let me get this straight:

1. He's just stunned, absolutely stunned, that a journal would require you to provide all data and computer programs used to arrive at a conclusion. Whyever should he need to do such a thing? It isn't important to the scientific method if others are able to reproduce his results!
2. He's happy that people who disagree with him are dead. (appalling)

ITT: everyone tyring to defend Mike Mann and the people involved in climategate are getting
[ ]not told
[ ]told
[ X ]the greatest story ever TOLD

>>2540243
I was going to read the whole thread, but this response hit it on the nail. Fuck yeah.

Well, it's settled.
Global warming is bullshit, the climatologists involved are fraudulent, and Mike Mann is evil.

You know, millions of years ago the Earth was a freaking greenhouse in comparison. Tropical climates all around the globe. Then a meteor hit and fucked everything up.

Maybe the planet is just slowly reacquiring its original temperature?

>>2540942

It's Penn State, what do you expect?

You know what the great thing about science is? It's independent of personality. Take the same data and do an analysis yourself. If you get different results, then you have something to discuss. Sometimes even scientists have an agenda they put first, above research. But it's easy to check that. Just have somebody else do the analysis. Even if all these guys are out to prove global warming, while they may be intellectually defunct, their results are still sound. That's the thing: you don't have to TRUST them. The data speaks for itself.

The truth doesn't go away just because you don't like it. The stupidest thing I ever heard was when somebody told me that global warming was a huge conspiracy, but said that a conspiracy amongst conservatives lead by special interests was out of the question because "a conspiracy is just silly."