“Phraud” that Dwarfs Climategate?

_{Barry Arrington

December 30, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

Would this be considered fraud? Does anyone else remember the article?
I do not remember seeing this article, but here is my guess what happened: The data found on the hard drive is raw data while the online published data is processed. Since in general during a publication the processing steps are published as well I would think that it is transparent how the raw data was altered to obtain the published data--and likely also why. 1) Now, if the fact the data was processed prior to publication was not clearly stated this was definitely sloppy science or an attempt to deceive. 2) If it was claimed the data was indeed unaltered but it was in fact altered I would consider it fraud. 3) If there is a minor discrepancy in the data on the hard drive and the published data that can not be accounted for by processing then this might be either an error or an attempt to deceive. The ORI would need to investigate. 4) If the raw data was processed and then published alongside with the information how the data was processed then the writer of the article you are referring to was either ignorant or willfully attempting to deceive. Once you find the article I'm curious which one of my scenarios is true. Does anybody want to guess?hrun0815_{January 3, 2015
January
01
Jan
3
03
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Many years ago, I ran into an article that compared online historical climate data with the same data that was stored on somebody's hard drive. The author noticed that the online data had been altered. Would this be considered fraud? Does anyone else remember the article? -QQuerius_{January 2, 2015
January
01
Jan
2
02
2015
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

And then of course there was the Koch funded Berkeley investigation headed by Richard Muller that was supposed to review comprehensively of human activity is indeed to blame for global warming. Watts famously proclaimed “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” In the end the review panel produced multiple studies- several of which directly dealt with claims on Anthony Watts's blog. You can have two guesses how that turned out: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/10/20/349544/berkeley-temperature-study-results-confirm-global-warming/hrun0815_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Collin, would you mind pointing me to the part of the Wikipedia page that says there are "insinuations against the people who broke into the computers to get the data" in the official investigations. I'd love to go back to the original documents of the investigation and check on this.hrun0815_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Inquiries_and_reports
Zachriel_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Not according to wikipedia. You should correct it.Collin_{January 1, 2015
January
01
Jan
1
01
2015
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Collin, I'm pretty sure that in all of the investigations there is hardly anything about the illegal activities used to obtain the emails. They address the scientists actions.hrun0815_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

hrun at 23, the wikipedia page is clear that the scientists were at least not being forthcoming and failed to comply with information requests.Collin_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

hrun, I wish I had the time to engage fully. So I will have to formally concede the argument, by default. I will say that I read the wikipedia article about it and came across nothing substantive. Only insinuations against the people who broke into the computers to get the data. It felt like a "brush aside" rather than a vindication. But I haven't read the reports themselves, so you win.Collin_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

Tjguy, are you serious with your post? This is such a simple matter and you are wondering who is right? And who do you think is hiding any data? How in the world do you think a scientist is able to hide old easily accessible data??? I don't even understand the charge.hrun0815_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Hiding data does nothing to build trust. When will these guys learn? It only gives the appearance of them being anti-science and having a particular agenda. Scientists are not immune to bias. We are all humans and all have biases and these effect our interpretation and sometimes presentation of the data - unfortunately. Just goes to show that the idea that scientists are somehow immune to bias is a foolish old wives tale. Data is trustworthy as long as it has not been fudged, but when it comes to the interpretation and presentation of it, that is where we need to realize that our biases can play a large role, even for scientists. Mark Frank points us to a blog that supposedly destroys and belittles this article. I don't know, but I do find it interesting that the Materialists are mostly pro-climate change and probably a majority of IDers tend to question the whole story a bit. So when an article like this comes out, certain people tend to jump on the bandwagon and receive the news positively, and others tend to question it and try and poke holes in it. Who takes what side is rather predictable. Mark, are you in agreement with what the blog says that you pointed us to? Is this guy trustworthy and knowledgeable? Why do you believe him as opposed to the writer who documented his story so well? Is it just your personal biases or have you really researched it? If the story was about an IDer who was withholding data, imagine the uproar we would hear from the Materialists? As I said, I don't know enough to be able to really say which side I believe is right, but I find the data suppression quite troubling and it raises red flags in my mind. Show us the data so we can all see. I think even you would agree with that, right Mark?tjguy_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Aurelio:
I asked about evidence for a gigantic fraud.
I was under the impression you were responding to what I posted: The entire “human emissions of CO2 is driving climate change”, is a fraud- your comment seemed as if it was addressed to me and what I said. Also warm waters release CO2 and that is why we see an increase in atmospheric CO2 follow the warming.Joe_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Hold on, the "skeptic" made a "global average pH" by taking the mean of many records spread across the globe, in different seasons and at different depths? Can you imagine what the so called skeptics would say if a climate scientist tried to make a global average temperature in the same slipshod way?wd400_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Collin, I am not sure what you want me to explain that goes beyond the official results of the investigations. One summary of a large chunk of the results can be found here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm I believe that for all investigations there is a link to the full PDF document of the investigation results together with the information of who led the investigation. The investigating entities are universities and government agencies both in the US and in the UK. Now, you can, of course, still believe that there is a giant cover-up. But you do have to now make the case that this is not just about a few climate researchers with an agenda, but whole universities and government agencies in at least two countries. In addition, there is nothing secretive going on. These are all officials that are publishing their investigation results-- openly and for the record. So, who to believe: Some bloggers that received hacked emails and based on a few snippets jumped to conclusions or the official investigations. And if you come down on the side of the bloggers, I really would like to know why.hrun0815_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Ok, hrun, your sarcasm has piqued my interest. Why don't you educate me about climategate and why those 10 investigations felt that it was appropriate for researchers to "hide the decline" in temperatures.Collin_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ Aurelio- You don't seem to be able to follow along- sad but typical. YOU asked about the fraud I mentioned and I answered. Please TRY to keep upJoe_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

@News:
I sometimes wonder whether naturalist science is approximately where the Catholic Church was before the Reformation and the Council of Trent. That is, so many grand claims, such poor performance. Thoughts?
Yes. What is "naturalist science"?!JWTruthInLove_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

You guys might want to look at some of the responses to this e.g http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/12/where-has-all-co2-gone-wuwt-fails.htmlMark Frank_{December 31, 2014
December
12
Dec
31
31
2014
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

Sorry if I'm doubtful that there are 100 years of pH measurements that the Darwinist-atheist-general bad guy cabal is hiding. 1) A proper pH meter dates to about 1934. Beckman's vacuum tube amplifier and electrodes. Electrodes without saline error (and the oceans are salty!) come later. NIST standards? Even later. Temperature corrections? 2) The dissociation constant of carbonic acid depends on pressure (think soda-and test it if you want). So unless since 1914, scientists have been using the same exact same protocol (testing pH at depth with a wood box filled with vacuum tubes?)......REC_{December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Collin, don't sell the scope of the scandal short. It was not a single investigation by a single institution. I believe it was nearly ten! And each one as big a scandal as climategate-- or even bigger!!! And now this. Yet an even bigger scandal. And if this new scandal gets investigated there will be an even bigger one still. I have a felling it'll just keep on growing and growing.hrun0815_{December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

As, hrun, I think that the investigation after climate gate was the second scandal.Collin_{December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Yes Aurelio, lack of credible evidence that human contributions of CO2 are affecting the climate.Joe_{December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Yup, Aurelio. Same one.hrun0815_{December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

The entire "human emissions of CO2 is driving climate change", is a fraudJoe_{December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

“Phraud” that Dwarfs Climategate?
Considering what came out of the official investigations into all of 'climategate' or specific aspects thereof... that doesn't seem very hard.hrun0815_{December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

I sometimes wonder whether naturalist science is approximately where the Catholic Church was before the Reformation and the Council of Trent. That is, so many grand claims, such poor performance. Thoughts?News_{December 30, 2014
December
12
Dec
30
30
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply