Thread: Hacker dropped a pebble caused a tsunami CLIMATEGATE

The whistleblower and/or hacker who dropped the CRU email pebble may not have even realized the magnitude of the resulting tsunami

East Anglia Event Horizon

By Joseph A Olson, PE
Monday, December 28, 2009

We still do not know the back story to today’s greatest headline. The whistleblower and/or hacker who dropped the CRU email pebble may not have even realized the magnitude of the resulting tsunami. We must pray that this act of heroism goes unpunished. By threatening the current annual carbon exchanges of $125 billion, which were expected to rise to a trillion, there are plenty of upset money changers turned scalp hunters in the temple.

The “Blessedâ€

As the Royal Society of London prepares to celebrate its 350th anniversary we must all now admit that we have witnessed the greatest fraud in human history.

I thought that the 'earth was flat' was a good one. Of course that one was rooted in ignorance. Anthropogenic Global/Warming/Cooling/Changing on the other hand does seem to take the cake. We have both ignorance and greed to contend with. Or is that greed and ignorance. Can't have one without the other in this case.

They were the ones to codify the principles of measurability, repeatability and openness required by the proper use of the scientific method.

Scientific Method. I have not heard this phrase used enough during discussions of global warming, climate change (or any other so-called recent scientific discoveries). I and my class mates was taught the fundamentals of the Scientific Method in our science classes in high school. I don't know if they still teach it or not, but in my college science classes it was hammered even more, with emphasis on establishing effective, standard controls so that independent experiments would have a standard base against which to measure results. Also had to share all resulting data because how can one compare results if one does not have the complete results of previous experiments. This type of data is noticeably absent from the Climate Change scientific community. They hid data, so much so, that others had to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain it. Key data was destroyed or lost. This would normally invalidate findings, and require an effort to re-acquire the data. Not so with the Climate Change crowd. Also, real science encourages the exploration of alternative theories or hypotheses. This is often useful to lead to establish further proof of one's original conclusions, or to weed out parts of the original theory or hypothesis that proved fallacious. But no one in the Climate Change crowd wants to explain why solar sun spot cycles are not a major cause of geological warming trends. Nor what effect the Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun may have, or the tilt of the North and South poles as the Earth rotates while following its elliptical orbit around the sun. No one talks about undersea fissures, earthquakes, and volcanoes, and what effect they would have on the sea's acidity, Nor do they discuss theories generated decades ago about expansion of the earth's crust due to heat and gases at the earth's core, and how an expanding crust could create the effect of rising seas. These are all hypotheses or theories too, but they are just as valid as the global warming hypothesis. Maybe more so. The data supporting them was not 'gamed' in the manner that climate change data was according to the hacked e-mails.

What I find most interesting is comparing Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to Erich von Daniken's book "Gods From Outer Space". In my opinion, von Daniken has more scientific proof for his hypothesis than Gore does for his. Von Daniken's data is provided one hundred per cent in the form of photographs of geological and anthropological oddities, such as the Easter Island monoliths, the Great Pyramid, ancient Mayan and Aztec drawings, etc. The existence of these are indisputable. Then von Daniken builds his hypothesis of visitors from space as the best explanation for these oddities. To those who deny this possibility, he only says prove it to be wrong. Sounds like Al Gore and friends. But Gore had to fudge many of his "facts", von Daniken did not. Where they are identical is that they took so-called facts and interpreted them as they pleased. Where they differ again is that von Daniken never claimed his conclusions, unsupported by the Scientifc Method, were indisputable fact . Al Gore did.

Quote:
They were the ones to codify the principles of measurability, repeatability and openness required by the proper use of the scientific method.


Scientific Method. I have not heard this phrase used enough during discussions of global warming, climate change (or any other so-called recent scientific discoveries). I and my class mates was taught the fundamentals of the Scientific Method in our science classes in high school. I don't know if they still teach it or not, but in my college science classes it was hammered even more, with emphasis on establishing effective, standard controls so that independent experiments would have a standard base against which to measure results. Also had to share all resulting data because how can one compare results if one does not have the complete results of previous experiments. This type of data is noticeably absent from the Climate Change scientific community. They hid data, so much so, that others had to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain it. Key data was destroyed or lost. This would normally invalidate findings, and require an effort to re-acquire the data. Not so with the Climate Change crowd. Also, real science encourages the exploration of alternative theories or hypotheses. This is often useful to lead to establish further proof of one's original conclusions, or to weed out parts of the original theory or hypothesis that proved fallacious. But no one in the Climate Change crowd wants to explain why solar sun spot cycles are not a major cause of geological warming trends. Nor what effect the Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun may have, or the tilt of the North and South poles as the Earth rotates while following its elliptical orbit around the sun. No one talks about undersea fissures, earthquakes, and volcanoes, and what effect they would have on the sea's acidity, Nor do they discuss theories generated decades ago about expansion of the earth's crust due to heat and gases at the earth's core, and how an expanding crust could create the effect of rising seas. These are all hypotheses or theories too, but they are just as valid as the global warming hypothesis. Maybe more so. The data supporting them was not 'gamed' in the manner that climate change data was according to the hacked e-mails.

What I find most interesting is comparing Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to Erich von Daniken's book "Gods From Outer Space". In my opinion, von Daniken has more scientific proof for his hypothesis than Gore does for his. Von Daniken's data is provided one hundred per cent in the form of photographs of geological and anthropological oddities, such as the Easter Island monoliths, the Great Pyramid, ancient Mayan and Aztec drawings, etc. The existence of these are indisputable. Then von Daniken builds his hypothesis of visitors from space as the best explanation for these oddities. To those who deny this possibility, he only says prove it to be wrong. Sounds like Al Gore and friends. But Gore had to fudge many of his "facts", von Daniken did not. Where they are identical is that they took so-called facts and interpreted them as they pleased. Where they differ again is that von Daniken never claimed his conclusions, unsupported by the Scientifc Method, were indisputable fact . Al Gore did.

Great points 4thHorseman.

Given the assault that has taken place upon the scientific community, will the students coming up studying science as a career benefit from this travesty?

It would seem that some of the dope smoking, mush mellon types may fall into this political trap and sell their souls to the highest bidder. Then I think there are those that will benefit from such a fiasco and see that discipline must prevail or their education will have been for naught. Science has been dealt a bad hand of cards, yet this time there might be an ace up the sleeve.

Science, and the scientific community deserve better, may the bad apples be recorded as such, and their names be used as a lesson for how not to conduct the scientific method. Morales have a place in science, right along side of ethics. JMHO

Science, and the scientific community deserve better, may the bad apples be recorded as such, and their names be used as a lesson for how not to conduct the scientific method. Morales have a place in science, right along side of ethics. JMHO

I agree. There is nothing new about politicizing science. It was done to undermine Copernicus, Galileo, and numerous other scientists during the dark ages and medieval periods. But we were supposed to be past that. Not anymore. In the distant past much of the politicizing of science was based on conflicts with religious beliefs, and the fact that science undermined the authority of the religious hierarchy. Today it is about money and political power. Which is pretty much the same thing, I guess, except the new state religion is Environmentalism and the new religious hierarchy includes Al Gore and the CRU.

Originally Posted by 4thHorseman

Science, and the scientific community deserve better, may the bad apples be recorded as such, and their names be used as a lesson for how not to conduct the scientific method. Morales have a place in science, right along side of ethics. JMHO

I agree. There is nothing new about politicizing science. It was done to undermine Copernicus, Galileo, and numerous other scientists during the dark ages and medieval periods. But we were supposed to be past that. Not anymore. In the distant past much of the politicizing of science was based on conflicts with religious beliefs, and the fact that science undermined the authority of the religious hierarchy. Today it is about money and political power. Which is pretty much the same thing, I guess, except the new state religion is Environmentalism and the new religious hierarchy includes Al Gore and the CRU.

Couldn't have said it better.

But the thing that is most agrivating to me, is the way the science was politicized to use it as a scare tactic to steal even more of our wealth from us. That is what politics has turned into. A "How to bleed the country white club".

Science should, and hardly ever is, used to the betterment of society, unless it has some military or coercive potential. And if the politicians try to sell it as a betterment, it usually has some diabolical pretence behind it. Remember what Ronald Reagan said, The 9 scariest words in English are, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

4thHorseman wrote,

the new state religion is Environmentalism and the new religious hierarchy includes Al Gore and the CRU.

From the dark ages to the Reformation, and now back to the dark ages. With Gaia worshipers, how long til they start throwing virgin maidens into the volcanoes?

Free will sure has a way of unleashing the tyrants.