Wildlife Gardeners - North American Wildlife Gardening  

Go Back   Wildlife Gardeners - North American Wildlife Gardening > Reduce That Ecological Footprint > North American News and Current Events

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2009, 05:55 PM   #1
WG Staff
 
Staff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Default Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
By Andrew C. Revkin
Published: November 20, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
excerpts from above:
Quote:
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and ...
__________________
The tendency of man's nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards.
-Mencius
Staff is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 01:21 AM   #2
Official Plant Nerd
 
Equilibrium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Default

I see... NY Times FINALLY gets around to reporting this and there we have it straight from the NY Times, "Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here." Losers. They're no better than the Washington Post. I read about this two days ago from the blogs of one of my favorite authors, James Delingpole Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science – Telegraph Blogs I started following him after I couldn't get any information on Vilsack. He has a book out that's really interesting if you want to start following the money, Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work I bought it after I tried to figure out what was going on with all the genetically modified organisms and why Monsanto kept being billed as having the silver bullets to save us all... Here's more on the e-mails,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?" and lookie what I found at Fox News... the Fox News that wussied out of running a story on a Monsanto product found in milk that has some evidence of being linked to cancer after being contacted by lawyers representing Monsanto mediabistro: content: features Guess they found some backbone http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html "Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails". I was just having a conversation with a friend about how academia has an awful lot of big knives in their back pockets these days ready to use them if anyone gets in the way of their access to research money and how some of them will look both ways to see who's watching before they push women and children off a life raft to save their precious funds. And they're right about something... the public has trusted peer reviewed research with few questioning the peer review process which is evidently corrupt when "dissenting scientists" get squeezed from the peer review process for the greater good. I'm happy somebody hacked the system. Look at the dirty underhanded tricks that have been pulled coming to light. You can take it to the bank we haven't heard the end of this... this is the tip of the iceberg. Finally... maybe some of that global warming research money can be routed somewhere more productive like to research on toxic cocktails, http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20092709-19871.html and while we're at it let's put some of that research money toward figuring out if GMOs are REALLY as safe for us human beings as it seems everybody standing to profit from them wants us to believe.
__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
- Dr. Seuss

Last edited by Cirsium; 07-31-2010 at 09:38 PM. Reason: Repaired link
Equilibrium is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 03:53 AM   #3
Slapping, Swearing, Itching, Scratching Mosquito Bait
 
swamp thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: pennsylvania,usa
Default

Quote:
...we have it straight from the NY Times, "Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here."
I can't find what you have "quoted" in the article.

And considering the CRU was hacked on the 19th, I don't think it's fair to say the Times "FINALLY gets around to reporting this" on ...the 20th? Unless I'm missing something...

I'm curious to know what you think is a good U.S. newspaper if the New York Times and the Washington Post are "losers". The politics blogger Delingpole sounds like a real winner, who calls people "ecofascists". I don't think I could take him very seriously. I guess he's a AGW denier.
swamp thing is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 04:22 AM   #4
Official Plant Nerd
 
Equilibrium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Default

Quote goes to Delingpole. I like small town local newspapers. Calling people ecofascists is rude and classless but consider the source. I don't agree with much of what Delingpole says but you have to admit he brings up some topics that don't seem to be touched with a 10' pole on this side of the pond or if they are they're favorable to Monsanto et al. See here, business as usual for the NY Times, Global Warming- Science - The New York Times# and they're still at it pushing human driven global warming in the midst of what will probably end up being bigger than Watergate... Climategate... not that we'll ever get a good feel for what's going on unless we go to UK news sites or blogs where people are beginning to think for themselves wondering why all this money is going to global warming research when most of that research money should be going to fund research to figure out how to clean up this mess of a planet we've got on our hands. He may be controversial but he's getting people to think for themselves rather than accepting anything the NY Times puts in print as gospel. I had stopped following links to anything that had Fox news in it ever since that garbage with not running a story on one of Monsanto's products. Weenies. I hate to say it but is there anything Monsanto doesn't manipulate??? I'm a public health proponent... we need to start funding research that is going to benefit human beings as in you and me not humans beings with stock in biotechnology.
__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
- Dr. Seuss
Equilibrium is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 04:27 AM   #5
Official Plant Nerd
 
Equilibrium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Default

And these kinds of commercials are an insult... but they'll air and everyone will be up in arms, James Delingpole – Telegraph Blogs
The guy is outrageous but... he's getting people to think. I'd like to see more of this on our side of the pond. We don't need to agree with people like him... we do need to start questioning whaz going down.

adding...
Here's a blog that has a comment I can relate to, http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:new_...hange-Skeptics
"This sort of revelation does more than just harm those who espouse climate change driven by man; it harms the community in general. Scientists rely on the public’s belief that they speak from knowledge and without bias, based on scientific data. When that trust is lost nothing they say will be above question. You wonder who the idiots are sometimes."
__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
- Dr. Seuss
Equilibrium is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 05:37 AM   #6
Slapping, Swearing, Itching, Scratching Mosquito Bait
 
swamp thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: pennsylvania,usa
Default

I get it now, you're quoting his spin on the Times' reporting. When I read the Times' article, they seem to quote scientists in both camps, some of whom don't see any "smoking gun", and some who see a "mushroom cloud". Delingpole omitted that for some reason. Maybe it's not as provocative that way.

And wow - bigger than Watergate? That's, ah, s t r e t c h i n g it a bit, don't you think? LOL. (As you probably remember, that "loser" paper, the Washington Post, uncovered that scandal...) Forty indictments, the U.S. attorney general incarcerated and a president resigning in shame, a step ahead of his own prosecution... I'm not seeing the parallel.

The only felony I see is hacking people's email. Dr. Trenberth is right, there better be something serious in those stolen emails, or this will backfire hard on the denier crowd. I hope we get to find out who the hackers are and who might be backing them...hmmm.
swamp thing is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 07:21 AM   #7
The Bug Whisperer
 
suunto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Monroe County, WV, USA
Default

I've been following this topic for a long time, reading the original scientific articles and not the blogs from either end of the political spectrum. After a lot of digesting, I find the scientific evidence both for an increasing warming trend and an anthropogenic association in this trend to be pretty compelling. Many of the skeptics/deniers, IMHO, appear to demonstrate a poor understanding of scientific method. For one aspect, knowledge does not always progress in a smooth manner, and hypotheses often are changed or even discarded as more data accumulate. Also, many of these folks often point out anomalies such as what happened during a particular year as if this disproves everything, such as "1998 was the warmest year on record, therefore the earth has been cooling..." Well, in 1936, North Dakota had its record high temperature of 121F. Has it has been cooling there ever since? Oops! Also in 1936, North Dakota experienced its coldest temperature ever, -60F - it's been getting warmer ever since!
__________________
“Every artist dips his brush in his own soul and paints his own nature into his pictures.”

Henry Ward Beecher
suunto is offline  
Old 11-22-2009, 11:33 AM   #8
WG Writer
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Greensboro, Alabama USA
Default

Quote:
while we're at it let's put some of that research money toward figuring out if GMOs are REALLY as safe for us human beings as it seems everybody standing to profit from them wants us to believe.
from Equilibrium - above.

Now wouldn't that be hard to do since the owner of the GMOs also owns the research rights?

what we need are laws that gaurantee independent testing of research claims.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 01:28 AM   #9
Official Plant Nerd
 
Equilibrium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Default

I’ve been following the topic since around 2003, recently in blogs. IMHO…This isn’t about what evidence I believe is compelling and it isn’t about what evidence anyone else believes is compelling since… we’re all losers when something of this magnitude rocks our world leaving a big fat black eye on the scientific community as a whole while robbing us of brilliant minds. These people are finished… it’s over for them… might as well put them on suicide watch…and they were brilliant minds corrupted by a system. I don’t think anyone would disagree that climate change isn’t occurring but… my point was… where are unbiased reports of prior peer review “transparency scandals” in our media. How can we… in good conscience, continue to maintain the pretense that serious flaws in the peer review process don’t exist… page 39-44, http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php Nope, no attempt to mislead the public by posturing for anyone with interests in carbon credits or tax and cap in those e-mails. No media blitzes there. It’s not JUST global warming. It’s large-scale wind power… it’s stem cell research… it’s alternative medicine… it’s…it’s…it’s… all the posturing for tax payer grant money where we’re looking the other way while the end is allowed to justify the means. Maybe it’s just me but I’m seeing undeniable politics in the peer review process that didn’t crop up overnight and we should have been doing something about this all along, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=politics-in-peer-review, “And at least three scientists who were on the journal's peer-review panel--Wolfgang Cramer, Tom Wigley and Danny Harvey--have complained that de Freitas has published papers they have deemed unacceptable without notifying them.” Sounds an awful lot like a failed attempt at censorship to me but what do I know. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030234, “Stanford University (Stanford, California, United States of America) stem cell scientist Irv Weissman, who played a key role in the multimillion dollar effort that recruited researchers, advocates, and Hollywood actors” and then billions for one state not counting the billions being spent by other states, “With interest, Prop 71 is projected to cost the state approximately US$6 billion if paid over a 30-year period” and keep in mind, “as economic and scientific interests clash with religious and cultural mores in a battle over research that has yet to help a single patient.” Another example I read tonight here, http://www.wildlifegardeners.org/forum/heirlooms-herbs-spices-culinary/4538-experts-placebo-power-behind-many-natural-cures.html#post50428, “Ten years and $2.5 billion in research have found no cures from alternative medicine.” When Hollywood and biotechs begin partnering, we should all expect to see fewer and fewer examples of conflicting views allowed to coexist and compete which is totally wrong. There’s a blizzard of cherry picked and manipulated data out there supporting what’s being presented as mainstream for the benefit of stakeholders. What ever happened to all the talk about providing access to raw data? Why are summaries supposed to appease us? Ethic problems aren’t isolated occurrences but they’re hush hush... sweep them under the carpet... pretend they don’t exist, http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04990.html. Again, maybe it’s just me but I think we’re long over due for competing interests policies for authors AND editors AND reviewers. This would go a long way to restoring trust in the process so we can all follow the money. Maybe I’m in need of help understanding what’s so wrong with skepticism and controversy when it comes to my tax dollar being misappropriated for a greater good defined and reinforced by the power of suggestion, http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/harrison_peer_review_politics_and_pluralism.pdfThe first part of this paper describes the editorial decisions that led to the publishing of The Skeptical Environmentalist (TSE) and the rejection of requests by critics that Cambridge should cease publication on the grounds of claims that it had not been peer-reviewed and that it would be abused by right wing political interests seeking justification for opposing new environmental regulation. The second part focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of peer review and compares the editorial decision-making process, including peer review in journals and book publishers. The third part of the paper explores the role of political considerations in editorial decision-making and compares the controversy surrounding TSE with other recent controversial publications in both the arts and sciences. The final part of the article draws on the work of political scientist and constitutional lawyer Cass Sunstein to argue that the academy is based on the principle of pluralism and that University Presses acting as “general interest intermediaries” have a particular responsibility to publish a wide range of opinion. Political pressure on presses to exercise a form of self-censorship should be resisted.There are so many things that could be done to improve accountability so we could put our time...effort... and hard earned tax dollar to good use but... I’m afraid it will be business as usual just as soon as Phil Jones announces his resignation.

"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers.”
-- Mignon McLaughlin
__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
- Dr. Seuss
Equilibrium is offline  
Old 11-25-2009, 08:34 AM   #10
The Bug Whisperer
 
suunto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Monroe County, WV, USA
Default

No, peer review isn't perfect, and scientists are very human, but my biggest gripe is the haphazard and often sensationalist reporting of scientific research in general by the popular press...
__________________
“Every artist dips his brush in his own soul and paints his own nature into his pictures.”

Henry Ward Beecher
suunto is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
climate, climate change, climate researchers, climate scientists, climate treaty, dispute, email, fodder, global cooling, global temperature increases, global warming, global warming skeptics, greenhouse gas emissions, hacked, news articles, precipitation patterns, scientific data, weather

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2