[Precturge]

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

[gkihueonhjh]

I was just reading about that too, here's a link.

[disappointment2]

Because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community were on this one British researcher's email buddy list, of course.

[Dndjzirw]

motive?

[Precturge]

If you mean a possible motive for collusion among scientists, it can range from ensuring continuing funding by generating expected, politically-correct, or scary results, to wishing to expand the environmental industry.

[Dndjzirw]

If you mean a possible motive for collusion among scientists, it can range from ensuring continuing funding by generating expected, politically-correct, or scary results, to wishing to expand the environmental industry.

So you suspect that scientists, who are experts in the field of climatology, whose reputations are based on the accuracy of their data and conclusions have more motive to collude and lie about global warming than politicians who get re-elected based on how much money they can raise for campaigning and are heavily lobbied by polluting industries who fear increased costs of environmental controls?

[Precturge]

So you suspect that scientists, who are experts in the field of climatology, whose reputations are based on the accuracy of their data and conclusions have more motive to collude and lie about global warming than politicians who get re-elected based on how much money they can raise for campaigning and are heavily lobbied by polluting industries who fear increased costs of environmental controls?

Don't assume all scientists are motivated by the selfless desire to learn even if the results disprove their own biases. I'd wager the majority don't fit that noble, Disney-esque description.

Environmentalism is a business. A very, very big one. Therefore, there are business interests at heart, no different than those of Exxon or Shell.

[dserbokim]

It's much easier to chose a conclusion, then look for evidence which supports it and ignore everything else.

Why would you do it any other way?

[Precturge]

It's much easier to chose a conclusion, then look for evidence which supports it and ignore everything else.

Why would you do it any other way?

I am well aware that's how you work. Pretty much every post on PS demonstrates that.

[kasandrasikl]

Don't assume all scientists are motivated by the selfless desire to learn even if the results disprove their own biases. I'd wager the majority don't fit that noble, Disney-esque description.

Most scientists go into their fields knowing they won't be making much money and the intricate details of their specialization will be understood fully only amongst the hundred or so people that share the same.

[dserbokim]

Are you kidding? everyone knows that scientists only get into it for bitches, coke and fame! The more esoteric the field of study richer they become and the more irresistible to women they are.

Check out this pimpest mudderfokker around:

[flopay]

I bet Al Gore feels like a smacked arse about now...LMAO!!! Environmentalism is just another step into socialism. Look at all the billions of tax dollars GE is going to get from Obama for GREEN BS. The new Green is Red.

[SeLvesTr]

I bet Al Gore feels like a smacked arse about now...LMAO!!! Environmentalism is just another step into socialism. Look at all the billions of tax dollars GE is going to get from Obama for GREEN BS. The new Green is Red.

So you're in favor of the United States sending a billion dollars a day to the middle east. You're a terrorist.

[fuslkdhfma]

So you're in favor of the United States sending a billion dollars a day to the middle east. You're a terrorist.

No, actually, Big Mel is a communist plant, kind of a Manchurian Candidate for the discussion group set. He's been sent here to annoy us into submission.

[SeLvesTr]

No, actually, Big Mel is a communist plant, kind of a Manchurian Candidate for the discussion group set. He's been sent here to annoy us into submission.

I think he's really part of a secret cell of radical Muslims.

[dserbokim]

About that evidence of a massive climatologist conspiracy

[BEyng6hj]

Some analysis from not-insane people:

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail

But let's be clear: Jones is talking to his colleagues about making a prettier picture out of his data, and not about manipulating the data itself.

[Precturge]

Some analysis from not-insane people:

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail

From your link:

[Actually, what you have is a scientist, Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing thing to do -- I'd go so far as to call it unethical -- and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer.[/quote]

Glad he's willing to hold these climatologists to the same standard you guys are trying to hold Fox News. Aer you as consistent as as Mr. Silver?

At any rate, "hide the decline" is pretty suggestive. An analysis of exactly what was hidden will either vindicate or incriminate the research.

[BEyng6hj]

Glad he's willing to hold these climatologists to the same standard you guys are trying to hold Fox News. Aer you as consistent as as Mr. Silver?

At any rate, "hide the decline" is pretty suggestive. An analysis of exactly what was hidden will either vindicate or incriminate the research.

What's your point? The main issue is that Dr. Jones was not changing the data, just the presentation. This is to be frowned on, as Nate Silver said. However, claiming this email proves that global climate change is some international conspiracy among liberal scientists requires derangement on a really impressive level.

[Precturge]

What's your point? The main issue is that Dr. Jones was not changing the data, just the presentation. This is to be frowned on, as Nate Silver said. However, claiming this email proves that global climate change is some international conspiracy among liberal scientists requires derangement on a really impressive level.

Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together would realize that what I'm asking for is an analysis of WHAT was changed and how so. What data points and numbers were changed? Silver just claims the presentation was being sexed up, without mentioning WHAT was altered and in exactly what manner. Was any underlying data changed? And, even if no, even sexing up a graph is a big-f--king-deal, since that's the kind of junk the media and bureaucrats love to look at anyway.

I suspect he is hoping the rest of us will stop asking questions and 'just take his word for it.' He's gonna need a lot more than eight short paragraphs to explain why if he wants that to happen.