Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails

Source: Associated Press

By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) – 34 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn't change the fact that the world is warming.

Snip>
"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said another government scientist Jane Lubchenco. A marine biologist and climate researcher, she heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The e-mails don't negate or even deal with data from both NOAA and NASA, which keep independent climate records and show dramatic warming, Lubchenco told members of the House global warming committee.

Snip>
Defending the scientists, Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said somehow the e-mails aren't stopping the Arctic from warming, the oceans from getting more acidic, and glaciers from melting. He sarcastically asked Holdren and Lubchenco if they were part of a global conspiracy that even included fictional movie villain organizations. Holdren, played along, saying he was not.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipH9pZO6DehQPYm3WkYfGK82TlegD9CBFB901

---

Looks like the Republicans ran into a brick wall on this. What we need is someone hacking into all the big oil and coal industry special interest emails showing how much money they are poring into this to muddy up what the scientific community considers settled.

Just STFU - Republicon whimps -- and shitcan your whiney greed campaign against America and planet Earth.

Do you have a financial interest in this too?

One is trying to melt the ice caps and interfering with the other's Deep Freeze plans to take over the world. CONTROL and U.N.C.L.E. are just waiting for the assassins to sort it out. S.P.E.C.T.R.E. is neutral until they find out what #2 thinks.

1. Refusing to release the data that they use for models that will affect the entire globe?

2. Conspiring to violate FOIA laws?

3. Saying that they will delete this data rather than ever letting anybody see it?

4. It miraculously getting deleted before in fact anybody ever saw it?

Come on here. This is serious stuff. The fact that global warming is real is all the more reason to say "Wow, this is serious, these guys suck, throw out their work". It is settled by everyone else, but if these guys are lumped in with everyone else, then of course people are going to doubt the "settled science".

These guys screwed up royally and we should openly say so. When we do, the focus will be on the work of every other climate scientist. Until then the focus will be on these guys.

I don't know if anyone is saying these guys didn't screw up, they are just saying the science behind human causes to global warming are sound.

Right here on DU there are lots and lots of people who refuse to even read what any of the emails say and are just assuming that nothing bad happened.

because you're just parroting Glen Beck

NOAA and NASA are doing, is not important to me, nor are their communications. We have completely independent data from NOAA and NASA that proves global warming is happening and proves the anthropogenic component.

The emails are irrelevant. Besides being cherry-picked and edited by denialists.

The deception they have perpetrated will be hard to overcome. The alarmists have shot themselves in the foot.

what a stupid post

their data is still available. The British emails are irrelevant. Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

When you call people who don't take your theory as gospel "kooks" and "denialists", you alienate a very large segment of the population.

I have no faith in the words "scientific consensus". If your studies are good, release all the data and models so they can be replicated. Don't actively engage in attempts to prevent that data from being released.

A few scientists have politicized the issue and it's going to take a lot of work by everyone else to make sure the process moves forward on a completely open, 100% transparent path. That means some people will have to "waste" their time defending their methods and compiling all the data used so others can replicate their work but that's all part of the process.

and believe the most ridiculous pseudoscience nonsense that Beck and Limpballs et al. can spew.

and that "large segment of the population" is the 22% of Americans that still believe George W. Bush was a great president...

:puke:

1. Not being forced to hand their data to an uncredentialed cretin, who will almost certainly ignore the data that they DID use, and form a conclusion based on only the data that was excluded.
   
2. Freedom of information applies to governments and their agencies, not individuals.
   
3. If it's mine, I'm free to do with it as I please (within reason). This includes buying the Mona Lisa and putting a match to it if I so choose.
   
4. Let's see, an 'accident' or wasting two plus years redoing old work to explain exactly why the figures from a buoy in the Grand Banks were included, but those from a station that was surrounded by asphalt 20 years ago were not. And meanwhile not having any time to carry out further, original research. I'll take the accident.

As a general rule, researchers DO NOT make their raw data available for any number of reasons. The data may be (in whole or part) proprietry and not theirs to release. It may (almost certainly will) contain meaningless or erroneous values which will not be apparent to those not intimately versed in the nuances of the field. Yet unpublished research based on the same data could be preempted.

Out of context there may be some damning elements in the e-mails. In the context of dealing with a demonstrated ignoramus, with absolutely preconceived notions, who just happens to be bought and paid for by interests with a huge antipathy towards these researchers, puts them in a whole different light.

withholding crucial data about their research from the public?

" 1. Not being forced to hand their data to an uncredentialed cretin, who will almost certainly ignore the data that they DID use, and form a conclusion based on only the data that was excluded."

Problem is they've decided anyone who wants to dispute their results is not credentialed and thus unworthy of how they make their revelations.

" 2. Freedom of information applies to governments and their agencies, not individuals."

What about government funded agencies?


" 3. If it's mine, I'm free to do with it as I please (within reason). This includes buying the Mona Lisa and putting a match to it if I so choose."

True, but you can't then claim it's science if you torch the original data. Sorry, but to be science you need a peer review process, that requires all relevant data, not what you see fit to hand out to the commoners.


" 4. Let's see, an 'accident' or wasting two plus years redoing old work to explain exactly why the figures from a buoy in the Grand Banks were included, but those from a station that was surrounded by asphalt 20 years ago were not. And meanwhile not having any time to carry out further, original research. I'll take the accident."

Scientists should always be willing to explain their methods. They should never get as belligerent as you appear to be when asked what the heck they are doing.

"As a general rule, researchers DO NOT make their raw data available for any number of reasons. The data may be (in whole or part) proprietry and not theirs to release."

That's not really true, actually.

"It may (almost certainly will) contain meaningless or erroneous values which will not be apparent to those not intimately versed in the nuances of the field. Yet unpublished research based on the same data could be preempted."

Sounds like the same argument used for keeping the bible in latin, a dead language. The commoners won't understand what it says, we need to keep the originals from them and only offer a translated version of what they need to hear.

NOAA and NASA have come to the independent conclusion that global warming is real and the anthropogenic component is huge, and their data is still intact and available.

The British emails are completely irrelevant.

(emphasis and Global Historical Climatology Network link added).

And this all sounds like it is more or less verbatim from Glen Beck, so a cup of salt is appropriate.
Read the article about the testimony. It is clear that Sensenbrenner is full of crap and got his ass handed to him.

The emails are readily available, you choose to stick your head in the sand and not read them.

Not to mention - why are U.S. scientists being held accountable for the emails of British scientists about that have nothing to do with either U.S. scientists or NOAA/NASA data?

I stand by my characterization. STRAWMAN!

I would say at this point we need a massive investigation in to what is actually going on in this field. Shine some light on it, show in painstaking detail all their raw data, what they've done from it, how they came to various conclusions decided to exclude or adjust data points and so on.

At the best it looks like we're dealing with incompetent scientists. At the worst we have outright fraud on our hands. Either one would benefit from some transparency. In fact, transparency is a good goal for all researchers. Particularly those directing the possible use of trillions of public dollars.

Most rewarding for those of us who are not intimate with the field would be the general scientific journals: Science & Nature come readily to mind.

I agree that there is "outright fraud," and to best see it one needs look no further than the pronouncements of the extractive fossil-fuel industry.

This is the tobacco and health story all over again. Only this time the stakes are much higher.

To do nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions is to continue the experiment on the only world we have.


Denial, not just a river ...

and deceived Americans - not the other way around.

:thumbsdown:

it still won't convince the denialists. Because they are not interested in established facts and decades of referreed publication of global warming science.

by other scientists - not hiding data.

and there is NO FUCKING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that UK climate scientists have fudged any climate data.

unless of course you watch a lot of Glenn Beck

:thumbsdown:

your concern is noted

FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

I notice that often, and this is just another example... I have been waiting to hear what exactly is the so called 'PROOF' that the scientist are all colluding in a massive scam on this topic. :shakes-head:
i suppose that is not their job/responsibility to try to get to the truth anymore, just to report what he/she said, and that's it :shrug:

You see definite, hard proof of a conspiracy to ignore the FOI laws, and to keep the data from ever getting looked at by other scientists.

You see proof of a suggestion to delete data rather than ever release it.

That data was in fact deleted.

As to a conspiracy to fudge the data:

There is proof of at least one instance of cutting a series off at 1960, this data did not help the cause.

The arguments of the data actually being manipulated are too complicated for me to follow.

If you are interested in them, there are numerous websites on this.

lame

Would you like to try again?

It's rather silly that people come here and debate this without having taken a look at any of the emails. It is quite easy to find this stuff. MANY serious scientists who are top leaders promoting the reduction of C02 have said that what went on here was wrong and that these scientists should have nothing more to do with the IPCC report.

But instead people here, without obviously bothering to even find out what is in the emails automatically assume that nothing was wrong.

He nailed the guys behind the emails but nailed those who deny global warming even harder.

"deny global warming".

That makes it out to be a faith and those opposing it heretics. For instance, you can question whether jesus is the son of god not out of animosity but out of skepticism, but to a devout christian that means you are "denying jesus". Same thing.

When hawkings comes out with a new take on string theory and people question it's accuracy they aren't labeled string theory deniers.

Yes, I like that term "global warming denier", I rather enjoy being seen as a heretic by fundamentalists. Even though skeptic would be a better choice.

Toodles.

just your own faith in this scenario.

The UK has had a "Freedom of Information Act" since 2000.
It's not often taken as seriously as the US one appears to be
(e.g., there is more of the "F*ck it, let them wait" response
rather than "Redact everything in sight before release")
but it does exist.

I still like the way that tro certain types of people seem
to believe that the tapes were "destroyed" in the 1980s
to avoid having to present them in response to a FoIA request
in the mid 2000s ...

:hi:

who knows, they may be telling the truth. But we are in a position of just trusting them, when this revelation comes out at a very convenient time for them.

Were it any other field this revelation would receive a healthy dose of skepticism.

See #16 by Ghost Dog. The data has not been deleted. If you are talking about raw temperature data, it's not even their data to begin with.

"cutting a series off at 1960, this data did not help the cause" is an example of your paranoid interpretation (or Glen Beck's). If you are talking about a set of tree ring data, the authors themselves have said not to use it because they believe it's erroneous.

I don't know if some scientists mistakenly failed to honor a particular FOI request. I have read that there have been so many requests by global climate change deniers as to probably constitute harassment.

And it is a waste of time to debate with people who could easily read the emails but instead want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that there is not a problem.

And it is a waste of time to debate with people who could easily read the science but instead want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that there is not a problem.

Isn't harassment and refusing it is unconscionable. When you conduct a study, make a claim or forward a conclusion, it is absolutely necessary to present every single piece of information you used to come to that conclusion.

I cannot think of any paper, on any subject, which presents "every single piece of information."

In the case of large studies - say a clinical trail of a drug - the raw data alone could easily run to tens of thousands of pages. Much of this data may legally belong to the people who paid to collect it - which seems to be the case here, in that the UK meteorological office asserted copyright ownership to a very small percentage of the data (5% according to another post in this thread) and therefore did not, as it was not required to, release it.

What needs to presented in the literature are the characteristics of the data-set, the statistical methods used to interpret it, a description of how the data were collected, methods and equipment used, and the conclusions which the experimenters have drawn.

Perhaps the following is not true, but what if it is?
"Considered one of the world's countries most susceptible to climate change, it has a population of approximately 11,000. Tuvalu is often described as a canary in a mine, with predictions that it will become the first country to follow Atlantis into the ocean.."



http://www.moyak.com/papers/tuvalu-climate-change.html

Where be there any evidence that tobacco does not cause lung cancer (sorrrrrry, I mean that human greenhouse gas emissions are not causing global climate change)?

atmosphere? Having to release their data, explain what they have done to come to their conclusions, the basic mathematical models employed? What is this, nazi germany? Scientists should be free to make predictions and we should just accept them. It is very crass to ask the magician to reveal his tricks.

You have no clue how science works

I know how real science works, very intimately. This however is not real science. Not when they discard data casually and spend much of their time working to silence heretics.

Tell me, how do you publish data that you have destroyed?

Even many global warming enthusiasts have lamented the "tribal" nature in which these scientists have been behaving.

go into any researcher's office and there are typically shelves of notebooks filled with their prmary data.

"Even many global warming enthusiasts have lamented the "tribal" nature in which these scientists have been behaving."

another crock of Glenn Blech shit

"go into any researcher's office and there are typically shelves of notebooks filled with their prmary data."

Yes, good. Now what's different between that and the CRU? At the CRU they have claimed that all that primary data was discarded. REAL SCIENTISTS DON'T DO THAT. Got it?

"another crock of Glenn Blech shit"

George Monbiot (hardly a member of the beck fan club):

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

---

Now he goes on to say that this doesn't really matter in the scheme of things, not surprising as he is heavily invested in this theory, but even he doesn't try to pretend this never happened, or that it was acceptable. Sorry but when even Monbiot is willing to admit that something less than admirable was done then we need to look in to what is going on over there.

not purloined emails stolen by anti-climate science droogs.

The published peer reviewed climate science is broad-based and compelling....

Human activities are responsible for the recent rise in greenhouse gas concentrations which have measurably altered the Earth's radiative balance and warmed the planet.

anything else is Glenn Blecch bullshit

Assuming all opposition is driven by ideological nonsense, not merely skepticism. Oh no, those who disagree are the enemy!

Also, repeating your hypothesis over and over and demanding others to disprove it (I assume you are also beating your chest and trying to look bigger while doing this).

"The published peer reviewed climate science is broad-based and compelling...."

Published and peer reviewed by those who are involved in this scandal, as recent revelations have shown. I wonder, can you squeeze good science from bad data and groupthink?

You have no data to refute anthropogenic global warming - none

all you have are Glenn Beck talking points

I win

Did you miss the part of then conspiring to drive "deniers" out of the peer review process?

"You have no data to refute anthropogenic global warming - none"

That sounds familiar . . . hm . . . you can't disprove gods existence, therefore he must be real. It is not up to everyone else to disprove a theory, it is up to those who present it to prove it.


"all you have are Glenn Beck talking points"

I don't listen to glen beck. You seem to be a fan as you know everything he's said. I'm not sure what that has to do with this either way.

"I win"

And here I thought it was about the pursuit of truth, not a childish pissing match. :eyes:

You have none

period

I win

I'm guessing 16, male. At that stage when everything is a personal contest and winning, even at the expense of looking like a jackass, is the most important thing in the world?

Don't worry, in time your hormones will calm down and your logical faculties will return.

Here's the peer reviewed science since 1999 - read 'em and weep

Richard A. Kerr (2001) It's Official: Humans Are Behind Most of Global Warming
Science 2001. 291: 566 (commentary and summary of recent research)

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001). Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410: 355 - 357

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, R. Schnur (2001). Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 292: 270-274.

S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli (2001) Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System. Science 292: 267-270.

D. J. Karoly, K. Braganza, P. A. Stott, J. M. Arblaster, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Broccoli, and K. W. Dixon (2003) Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate. Science. 302: 1200-1203

B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann (2003) Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes. Science. 301: 479-483

P. A. Stott, D. A. Stone and M. R. Allen (2004) Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature 432: 610-614

J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt N. Tausnev (2005) Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science. 308: 1431 – 1435

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, K. M. AchutaRao, P. J. Gleckler, B. D. Santer, J. M. Gregory, and W. M. Washington (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science. 309: 284-287

M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. R. Soc.doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 Published online

oh yeah, this too...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5875 ...

Science 25 April 2008:
Vol. 320. no. 5875, pp. 518 - 520
DOI: 10.1126/science.1153468

Human-Induced Arctic Moistening

Seung-Ki Min, Xuebin Zhang, Francis Zwiers*

Abstract

The Arctic and northern subpolar regions are critical for climate change. Ice-albedo feedback amplifies warming in the Arctic, and fluctuations of regional fresh water inflow to the Arctic Ocean modulate the deep ocean circulation and thus exert a strong global influence. By comparing observations to simulations from 22 coupled climate models, we find influence from anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols in the space-time pattern of precipitation change over high-latitude land areas north of 55°N during the second half of the 20th century. The human-induced Arctic moistening is consistent with observed increases in Arctic river discharge and freshening of Arctic water masses. This result provides new evidence that human activity has contributed to Arctic hydrological change.

<full article needs subscription>

not bad for a 16 YO huh...

:rofl:

p. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

This in spite of an attempt to lock them out of the debate in a most unscientific manner.

Like I said, you'll grow out of it one day, which is why I don't let it bother me too much.

Now the adults who should know better, they do get on my nerves.

Patrick Michaels - paid consultant to the fossil fuel industry

Craig Idso - another paid consultant to the fossil fuel industry

Richard Lindzen - Author of the thoroughly refuted Adaptive Iris Hypothesis (cited in your list)

Fred Singer - poor Fred is an embarrassment to himself OMG

Roy Spencer - right wing Christian and author of a discredited satellite (MSU) data paper

John Christy - see above

Most of Arctic and Antarctic papers you cite are out of date - and new data contradicts their conclusions...

Amateur Hour Nonsense - but "real" science to people who have no science background...

:rofl:

for perfectly illustrating my point.

Your way of "refuting" those was to attack the authors on a personal level. You believe science is a personal war between individuals, and that you "win" by denigrating your "enemy".

Thank you very much, you have encapsulated all that is wrong with this debate nicely. :toast:

and you provide a perfect example of this, is how the debate is framed not as a free exchange of ideas to come to a reasonable conclusion, but rather an ideological or theological war, in which the other side must be defeated no matter the cost. It isn't about the science anymore, it's about "winning". And in this sense "winning" is divorced from the usual practice of simply providing overwhelming data in support of your hypothesis. Now it's about shouting down, censoring and discrediting your critics on a personal level. Challenges to the actual science are dismissed out of hand as unworthy of response, and instead a "defense" is mounted in the form of a vicious smear campaign against those who are seen as the enemies.


Sorry but this is NOT standard practice in other fields.

FYI

You do realize you can't just make something true by claiming it to be so?

And even if it could be traced back to a rightwing source (and not an anonymous hacker) that doesn't change the content of the emails.


FYI.

And like others have said, put up or shut up. Prove that global warming is not happening by posting every last bit of data and your entire analysis. Oh, and we also demand proof that you have a PhD in climatology, and not some silly copy. We want the long form of your diploma in person.

The main points here are A) these scientists have been shown to have behaved in an unprofessional manner that may affect their results. B) as such a complete and unbiased review of their data and procedures is in order to make sure everything is kosher C) a greater degree of transparency in the future is definitely called for D) trillions of dollars are riding on this so it would be nice to be sure before acting and if global warming is our fault we should have access to very clear data to figure out the best way to address it.

Do you disagree with those? If so, which and in what way.

We know that from multiple lines of evidence published over the last 55 years that we alone are responsible for global warming.

We know from the carbon isotope composition of fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide that human activities and human activities alone are measurably increasing CO2 concentrations.

Measured fluxes of methane and nitrous oxide and mass balances of these fluxes clearly indicate that increases of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the result of human activity - and nothing else..

We know there are no natural sources of man-made chlorofluorocarbons (powerful greenhouse gases) and that we alone are responsible for their presence in the atmosphere.

Measurements of solar activity clearly indicate that it cannot account for the recent rise in global temperatures because the trends are opposite in sign.

We know the IR spectra of CO2 and methane and nitrous oxide - and we know they abosrb upwelling IR in the atmosphere.

We can measure how much upwelling IR is absorbed by greenhouse gases and measure the thermal energy these gases retain in the climate system.

We have measured temperature increases in surficial rocks (borehole data) and the ocean (CTD data) and atmosphere (thermometer and satellite data) for more than a century -and it matches the increase expected from the rise in GHGs.

We have documented the melting of the global cryosphere.

We have documented the poleward and upslope migration of plants and animals world wide.

None of the above is fabricated

All of it is real.

You are wrong.

period.

or research it, global warming is our fault, period end of story. That is not how this process works.

"We know that from multiple lines of evidence published over the last 55 years that we alone are responsible for global warming."

Nope, even the strongest MMGW advocates don't argue that global warming is entirely a result of human activity.

You seem more interested in "proving your point" and shouting down opposition than in finding the truth behind this. Which is more important, being right or trying to force others to believe you are right?

yup

repeating your view over and over again then putting your fingers in your ear and yelling to drown out their rebuttal?

All you have is a stupid conspiracy theory based on stolen emails - an Glenn Beck talking points.

you deemed it unworthy because you had a personal grudge against all the authors, demonstrating an impeccable grasp of the scientific method. :rofl:

and no they haven't.

The manipulated and flawed data that among other things completely wiped out the medieval warming period and little ice age were released. Not the raw data (shredded I'm afraid).

And you do realize there was no raw data before a certain point? That most of it was made by proxy data points that were immediately discarded once it turned out they no longer matched actual temperatures as they had been predicted to? The older proxy data was kept, unchanged, the new proxy data that shows the model used to infer temperatures from them is horribly flawed was discarded casually.

:rofl:

Man's use of fire caused the first major climate change. Prevention of the same kind of catastrophe should have been started millenia ago. When will we learn!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/?GT1=43001

climate science by any stretch of the imagination. NOAA and NASA have proven the facts independently, and their data is intact.

Please cite specific data that prove that global warming is not happening and that anthropogenic global warming does not exist. We await the publication of YOUR paper in a peer-reviewed climate science journal, or perhaps Nature.

someone hasn't been paying attention!

:spank:

which independently prove global warming theory and the anthropogenic component.

You people must be well paid.

if it came up and bit them in the ass. Nor do any of them have any education in science beyond high school. It's sadly obvious.

not certified copies which we all know are fake), and I want proof that there are no others being secretly withheld.

:rofl:

Talk about guilt by association! So I guess we should hold the GW skeptics in Congress responsible for everything said by Hannity, Beck et al. And sarcasm in an email is no crime, which appears to be all they have on Holdren.

global warming skeptics movement then yes, their private emails stating how they intend to manipulate data to trick people in to believing them would be of some interest.

But I don't think they are scientists.

That being said you just made hannity and glenn beck the equivalent of the CRU scientists who were caught up in this; bombastic ideologues willing to lie and manipulate their audience to lead them to some desired viewpoint. Not a problem, except only one side claims to be scientists as well.

or outrageous statements of others.

of guilty by association:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4172753&mesg_id=4172753

... someone hacking into all the big oil and coal industry special interest emails showing how much money they are poring into this to muddy up what the scientific community considers settled. "

Thing is, if someone did that and found similiar comments as seen by the climate scientists: hiding data or altering to fit what they wanted to prove, working to shut out opposing views etc, there would be no question in light of those revelations (and where their money is coming from) that their conclusions are suspect.

Seems a double standard; look at where the money is coming from if they are being paid by a biased source the results are biased, unless that biased source wants to prove global warming is manmade. Any evidence of data tampering or misconduct should discredit the entire field, unless it is on the side that proves MMGW. And s on.

Climate change: Do you believe in a massive conspiracy by every major professional scientific organization, or don't you?

Simple as that.

It's an old conspiracy too, dating back to the 19th century "faked discovery" that CO2 absorbed what was known as "dark radiation". One of the earliest guys involved, Arrhenius, then went on to wield power with the Nobel prize physics committee, and I'm sure we all know that none of those discoveries were valid, either.

:sarcasm:

yup