|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 20, 2009 14:58:47 GMT
Watch the stock markets. When this gets out on the street, and is understood, there will be some mad scrambling in financial circles. A lot of major corporations have hung their hat on AGW.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 20, 2009 16:06:09 GMT
I have not read enough to verify some of the rumours etc. However: if what I have read is true, I throw my hands up in total discust and is what happens when politics gets involved in science. At some point someone is going to actually be correct, but now will be ignored. This is a very sad day whether you are an AGW proponent or a sceptic. In this case, it looks like the sceptics have been more right than wrong.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 20, 2009 16:15:12 GMT
I've been saying that for some time now. Its ruined the credibility of science in general. They'll surely be glad to hear this news at the various creationist organizations. See, THAT science was "settled".
*sigh* Stupid bastards. I'm also a bit annoyed with scientists in general. I know a lot believe we're impacting the ecosystem/climate but they SHOULD have made a VERY public stand when the entirely unsupported claims of 4C by 2100 (as a MINIMUM) started being pushed hard.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 20, 2009 16:16:35 GMT
"Hwang and some of his top colleagues were indicted in May 2006 by South Korean prosecutors and charged with fraud, embezzlement and violating bioethics rules. He faces potential jail time as a result of allegations of widespread embezzlement of $2.8 million in public research funds.
After getting more than $35 billion in research funds from the government and private donors, South Korean prosecutors say Hwang misused much of the money by laundering it through 63 bank accounts set up under false names."www.lifenews.com/bio2935.htmlSounds very much like some of those emails......... ".. That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money...."" I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999,"motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html........multiple accounts and large amounts of funding and apparently fraud. However, we should remember that this is not like other areas of scientific research this is climatology
|
|
|
Post by w7psk on Nov 20, 2009 16:46:58 GMT
So its been a scam all along
And AL GORE should lead the line to JAIL.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 20, 2009 16:49:27 GMT
To make it a bit easier to search I combined the emails into one, gigantic 8meg text file with an RTF extension so it will USUALLY open in the correct reader www.poitsplace.com/temp/bigmail.zip
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Nov 20, 2009 17:29:43 GMT
What are the chances that the Associated Press will break away one of its 11 reporters who are conducting opposition research on Sarah Palin to look into and report on this big story? Ah, slim to none.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 20, 2009 17:46:24 GMT
This sums it up nicely. blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics. So-called "peer review" is way overblown as being the gold standard of scientific research. I've made no apology to criticizing it as being "pal review" controlled by a closely knit agenda driven clique, and now there is no question that science has been damaged for a long time. All these prestigious journals have nobody to blame but themselves; they are jokes now. Roy Spencer warned of this, so did Pielke and others, now it is happening.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Nov 20, 2009 17:58:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Nov 20, 2009 18:43:55 GMT
I guess they finally realized that they where forced to release the files due to FOI. This may be the least damaging way. Some collateral damage but still least possible damage. By claiming that they have been hacked may take away media, as BBC, ability to check the files. Released but not discussed in mann-streamed :-) media.
It is odd that Jones and RC is the one that confirm that the files are the real stuff. And so soon.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 20, 2009 18:55:10 GMT
We will see if my comment can get past the moderators this time. Now I know why my comments on that site would never be posted. I used science to back up what I posted, but it disagreed with what Gaven/Mann etal wanted distributed.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 20, 2009 19:29:39 GMT
LOL, "Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined"
OMG, you mean they're NOT a united front? The sad thing is that a lot of the stuff is fairly damning. Essentially their way out involved a side order of "I'm a crappy scientist".
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 20, 2009 19:58:36 GMT
None of it is damning. I am reading through it now and it's emails being sent between people doing work. There are no conspiracies there. The cite above about "funding" from some Russian scientists who require international funding is a joke. Your attempts to interpret these messages is appalling.
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Nov 20, 2009 20:06:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 20, 2009 20:29:18 GMT
Those appear to be very poor cherrypicks and fly in the face of the bulk of information I am reading.
It's the dry boring science talk which is the most revealing, because it shows how they are thinking and how they are working.
For example I have seen at least one heated argument which flies in the face of conspiracy theories of collusion. I also see them questioning their methods and records. I see hansen discussing differences between gistemp and hacrut. This flies in the face of the picture skeptics have been trying to paint of lush funding and "team" manipulation of data. Once it becomes entrenched as public I will happily reference some of this information in rebuttal to future claims of conspiracy.
Of course i am not done reading through it yet, maybe I will yet find something that will vindicate the skeptics.
|
|