Global warming proponents, does scientific progress depend on accurate and complete data?

Question

If so, how can you be FOR government intervention when SO much of the "scientific data" has been "tricked" and manipulated to show precisely what they wanted it to show and when most data that showed anything different was purposely left out, or changed?

excerpt...
In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

Pretty damning evidence!

Answer 1

I read your question and though "what on earth are you going on about". Then I re-read it carefully and slowly and still wasn't any the wiser.



The article in the Washington Times fails to put things into context and instead relies on journalistic malpractice by presenting snippits of information as being indicative of the full picture. If you adopt that approach then you can distort pretty much anything you want. To compound matters further, you then take the WP article and distort and corrupt it to suit your own ends.



It appears that you've already drawn your own conclusions and will disregard anything that contradicts them whilst happily inventing your own evidence to bolster your beliefs. It's not exactly a scientific or intellectual approach to a subject which requires both in good measure.



In any event, the basis of the WP article is meaningless. The CRU data is published online - it's available for all to see (no passwords, no logging in, no nothing). The F of I Act is of no consequence in this matter. Further, the DPA covers personal information not scientific so 'hiding behind' the DPA is a nonsense. These purported e-mails are riddled with such basic errors that it leads me to beleive that they may well have been fabricated by someone with malicious intent (and clearly the hackers had just that).



And what's all this about truncating the data set? If, as those who oppose the theory of global warming claim, the world is cooling, then truncating the data will conceal this so the effect would be the precise opposite of what the author is attempting to claim (btw 2009 is on target to be the 3rd warmest year on record - not much evidence of cooling going on).



- - - - - - - - - -



EDIT: TO BEAM. To clarify, I don't work for the CRU, or at the CRU and never have done. I have been there many times.

Answer 2

Trevor,

At this stage of the game, admitting that you work for CRU only weakens your claims. Good luck.



Dana, are you on Michael Mann's payroll? I can not figure out why else you would still be hanging onto a dead horse. Even George Monbiot recognized his lapse in judgment.



I can not believe that you can not figure out what was wrong with these emails. Have you no ethics?



Are you one that believes it is okay to take candy from the candy store, as long as you don't get caught?



This was a public university paid for by the British tax payers. They are the rightful owners of the servers which housed the emails and therefore the rightful owners of the contents of the emails. If those emails were private messages, not relating to work, then they should have been using private email systems.

Answer 3

The data has not been "tricked" or "manipulated". The quotes you provide don't support this false claim.



Jones didn't want to provide his data to certain 'skeptics' like McIntyre who would find a "flaw" in it whether one existed or not. I certainly don't condone his statements, but I can understand where he's coming from. His email was to Michael Mann, who has experienced his name being dragged through the mud by 'skeptics' who completely misrepresented his work. Jones didn't want to experience the same thing.



Also, while Jones was blowing off steam in his email, he didn't actually delete any files. It's the equivalent of saying "I'm going to kill that guy". It's not like you're actually going to kill anyone. This is the problem with stealing and reading people's personal emails. If I stole your emails, I'm sure I could find some statements in there to misrepresent and make you look really bad too.



However, he didn't manipulate any data to show what he wanted. That's a false accusation. See Myth #14 at the link below for further details.



*edit* sorry buddy, your newest "smoking gun" isn't even a sentence taken out of context - it's a blogger's paraphrasing of what the sentence said.



Wake me up when you have some real evidence in the original context.

Answer 4

The cool 2008 and 2009 was already putting the chill on US voters' belief in warming, man-made or otherwise - the evidence of data manipulation and coverup is the nail in the coffin. If they don't get a bill passed by mid-term elections, they'll never get one passed.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017546/climategate-why-it-matters/

Answer 5

it is humorous that a 'scientific professional' might evaluate NASA and the IPCC to be 'liberal sources'. humorous as in you're a humorous tale. i used to be in denial in basic terms such as you. it's time to confess that we've been incorrect and settle for AGW.

Answer 6

There are types of scientist, the one who valued and respect their profession and the other are those corrupt who love huge amount of money and power beyond shame [thick skin]