“What is the real issue here? People associated with ­­­global warming research acted unethically in trying to suppress articles they disagreed with. They tried to keep control of their data, and often referred to opponents in disparaging terms.”
Unfortunately, in an attempt to downplay something (climategate), YOU have missed the real issue here. The emails are disturbing, if you read them you would see situations where Mann or Jones specifically admonished other climate scientists with data contrary to theirs NOT to share those contrary views with the press,, etc.. This is shown over and over again.
However, this is still not the major issue at hand. The actual code, if you take the time to investigate, shows that there is manipulation of the data to make temperatures go up (warming) when the raw data shows that the temps were declining.
This is called lying. You can look that definition up for yourself.

Most previous posts did not respond to my post, did not respond to any arguments in the Youtube, and came so fast that I deeply suspect the source. I am tired beyond words of right wing character bashing and ignorance of science. I have deleted them. You think I am unfair? Give me some sign you have read my post and address the points in it.
Otherwise save yourself the time it takes to post drivel and drool.
Pepanicky at least read the post, buy gives no sign of having actually listened to the Youtube post. Sorry – till you do why should I spend my time dealing with your arguments that appear to me to have been utterly discredited? But you are not deleted because you seem to have actually taken the time to engage to a limited degree.

Gus,
Can you respond to my post regarding the bigger issue of the data manipulation? Was I making my case with breath taking dishonesty? BTW…please inform me whether or not I fall into the”right wing” or not. I would be interested to know how you divined that:)
Tx

Gus,
Aha! I think I figured it out…when I was clicking on the link the You Tube video was starting at about 8:30 into the video..so I got the last few seconds of the video and frankly…didn’t see what your point was but to have some girl in a sweat jacket say “conspiracy”.
I went back and watched the video. This video really adds nothing to the discussion, whatsoever.
Regardless all of the emails are out there for everyone to peruse and make their own decision.
Regarding the data….either 2+2=4 or 2+2 =5. We shall see.

Peppanicky-
I have no idea what your politics are – but on balance – a big balance – the vast majority of those who are exercised about the supposed deceptions scientists are foisting on us are right wingers, and in my experience, which is substantial in this area, more interested in fighting enemies than understanding the issues. The raving lunacy of some of the posts that have appeared here, and that I have deleted, is evidence that we are dealing with some pretty disturbed folks. Little mini-glennbecks.
That said, as the Youtube video demonstrates, and as a number of other sources I’ve consulted show as well, the “data manipulation” was NOT a matter of fraud, it was a matter of terms such as “trick” being taken out of context. Again, the video demonstrates that fact much better than I can.
If anyone’s private emails are taken out of context they are likely to be misunderstood. This is especially the case with the use of terms such as “trick.” They would write differently if they were aware that other people would read them. A careful examination of the emails before and after them, as the Youtube video demonstrates, plus an examination of how the term is used in science generally, as the Youtube video does, should show fair minded people that little if anything can be proven by these emails other than unethical behavior with respect to silencing alternative points of view.
That’s bad enough by my book.

The video settles the issue of “trick” and of making certain issues disappear to my satisfaction. Especially if that is all the detractors can point to.
I guess that will have to be up to the judgment of anyone who sees it. If you assume dishonesty in advance, anything can seem possible.

Gus,
The point here is this is a incredibly serious issue (AGW). Right now in Copenhagen the representatives are spending large amounts of time speaking to reporters about climategate. This is not what they planned to do.
My feeling is, if it had just been the emails, it would have been one thing. But the “consensus” is slowly building that the data was manipulated to show warming where the raw data showed cooling.
If this is true, this is not a right wing or left wing issue. This is a much bigger issue than infighting amongst portions of the climate science community.
We should let all investigations take their course BEFORE signing huge international agreements.
Just my opinion:)

BTW
I viewed some of the programming code and the comments associated…(you can get there by going the leaked/stolen/whistleblown data.)
While reading through a substantial amount of code…I must say I laughed out loud at some of the comments from the programmers.
check some of it out when you get a chance….fascinating.

It is an incredibly serious issue.
Science has come to an increasing consensus that global warming is man caused and likely to be very serious in its impact. We know from past experience that the industries involved in harmful activities lie lie lie regarding the evidence. Think big tobacco as an example. All they want is to delay as long as possible because they make huge profits so long as we do. The well-being of the future does not matter – or their emotional investment in rationalizing what they do to themselves blinds them to the evidence – like Southern slave owners used to do.
Science, I hope it is obvious, is never 100% right, but is far and away our best means of knowing about how the world works.
A great deal of the attack on global warming arguments has sought not to deny the evidence but to attack the motives of the people presenting it. This is inherently dishonest as a means of dealing with the issue. This made up scandal is in keeping with that. People who have proven utterly scurrilous in the past, like Limbaugh and Beck, have jumped on it to attack the motives of people who are not paid a lot of money and who went into a field more out of a desire to learn than a desire for power or bucks.
It is an assault on decency to give people like that any credit for their distortions against people who, more than any other profession, have devoted themselves to uncovering the truth as best they can.

I am continuing to delete the people who want to use my blog to vent their spleen and ignore the issues. The tenor of their posts indicates no interest in discussion and a severe addiction to self-righteousness. It is beginning to feel good to hit the ‘delete’ button to their comments. I hope the use of this power does not corrupt me!

I am not a programmer, know nothing about it, and have no position on how good or bad their programming is. Show me people who take a balanced and informed view of the emails and are critical of the programming and I might reconsider. But not till then.
That it has been mentioned by people (I do not mean you peppanicky) who have proven so ill disposed to fairness regarding this issue is a good reason to not take the complaints seriously. That it is tied in with a nonexistent conspiracy and taking quotes out of context is reason enough for me to be skeptical of how important it is.
If it is bad programming, better programming will replace it and people who show it is bad will be recognized as improving our understanding.

The emails can and will be taken out of context, this I am sure. Computer Code can not be taken out of context.
The first link is a video from BBC News about the code.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGVr8rItsE
Here is a better explanation about the code.
http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/

The problem is sir, if the code used in the programming was faulty and the data was fudged, then that casts a shadow all climate science no matter how accurate it is! I realise man must be harming the atmosphere but at what levels. What if it is not co2 the cause and there is something else man is doing and we try to correct the wrong problem?
The real problem goes unchecked and the climate still deteriorates. I do understand programming, probably not at the level I need to understand the code fully, but from what I read they only included co2 as the only cause, the higher co2 the higher temperature. The real problem with that assumption is co2 has increased and temperature has levelled off which means other factors are involved.
So if we ratify COP-15 and other factors are causing the problem then all is a waste! The resources being used for this is wasted and the real problem goes unchecked.

I appreciate the last two posts a lot. Especially the one with links. Which I read. To my mind this deals with very important issues that are not the result of political conspiracy mongering, the arguments fit how organizations like to cover up their mistakes, how egos get in the way of good work, and so on. I was particularly impressed with cubeantics.com’s discussion. I am unqualified to judge it, but the discussion was on the details of code writing by people who sure know a lot more about it than I do. I was impressed with the lack of broad conspiracy stuff, and the focus on possibly bad science.
Please notice that the video I linked to and this one do not contradict one another. One deals with statements in emails, the other with arguments about bad code importing conclusions into the formulae. I am reminded of the ozone hole issue, where, as I remember, the phenomena was not identified at first because it was far enough out of the expected that the data was treated as defective.
After seeing cubeantic’s video in particular, I am curious as to
1. How the programming community will treat this stuff as it is discussed more.
2. How much global warming research is not dependent on this data, assuming the codes are misleading.
So THIS is stuff I respect, and I’m happy to be open minded till the programming community and scientific community has digested the issue.
It makes the point that I’ve made in other contexts that the best value in any organization making any sort of claims that affect us is TRANSPARENCY. Science at its best depends on it and these guys, as I said at the beginning, transgressed seriously by trying to deny people their data and standards for evaluating the data. If the code is bad, it’s all the worse.
I have taken a partial step towards agnosticism – but only a partial step. I, like most of us, am not a climate scientist and am dependent on the scientific community to do its job.

It was much warmer during the medieval warming period.
There are Vikings buried in permafrost in Greenland.
The permafrost was not disturbed since it froze.
It was not frozen when they were buried.
I would call that warmer then today, a lot warmer.
The ironic thing is that this evidence of the medieval warming period is in a museum in Copenhagen.
The Fate of Greenland’s Vikings February 28, 2000 by Dale Mackenzie Brown
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland
Also, the medieval warming period was global.
Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data
joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data
For a satirical look at the climategate computer programming (hiding the decline):
Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103

Can we please stop this practice of suffixing every picayune storm-in-a-teacup little controversy with “-gate”? Watergate, for those of you too young to remember, brought down a president and threatened the very existence of the USA. Every “gate” since then has been miniscule in comparison.
Having gotten that off my chest:
The most sensible comment on the whole issue I’ve seen yet was in yesterday’s NY Times
“If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html
A secular version of Pascal’s wager, one might say.

Yes, Andrew, there was a warm spell in the tenth and eleventh centuries. We’ve known that since, well, since the tenth and eleventh centuries. Three hundred years later there was a Little Ice Age and those vikings all died of hypothermia. All of which proves … absolutely nothing. The question here is not whether the weather before 1850 was absolutely static; of course it was not. The question is whether the current increase in temperature is due to human influence and if so, if there is still anything that can be done about it.
(Personally, I’d say yes and no to those questions. You might want to investigate real estate in the Yukon. Siberia looks good too.)

Clasqm, as I read the NYTimes article I noticed the mention of biofuels. Biofuels
and CF lightbulbs are a perfect example of what I am talking about! By using biofuels we ourselves are creating a world food shortage. We already are using 1/3 of the worlds food supply for ethanol production. The EPA has said they want to increase this up to 15% which in turn will cause more food shortages and more deforestation compounding the problem. CF light bulbs being out on the market contain large amounts of mercury, if you break one you even have to evacuate your house for 15 minutes. I use them myself, but what about proper disposal? Mercury can get in the ground water supply causing mercury poisoning. The problem is we have to be very careful when approaching the problem of climate change as most things us humans do to solve a problem usually creates five!

Here is a good example of what I am talking about!
“As a National Geographic Report confirmed, “With food prices rising, Haiti’s poorest can’t afford even a daily plate of rice, and some must take desperate measures to fill their bellies,” by “eating mud,” partly as a consequence of “increasing global demand for biofuels.”
In April last year, World Bank President Robert Zoellick admitted that biofuels were a “significant contributor” to soaring food prices that have led to riots in countries such as Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, and even Italy.
“We estimate that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low-income countries deeper into poverty,” he stated.”
So by putting political policies in place without first knowing ALL the facts.
I just think this is not as critical as some scientist claim and we need to think before we leap!

Well, I am a programmer, and while I have neither seen the code in question nor written code for scientific applications, the fundamentals are the same.
Data integrity:
Data is in three basic forms: The raw, source data; the data loaded to the database for storage and subsequent processing; the data displayed in a report whether it was extracted from the database or resulted from further processing. The stored data will often look “differnt” from the raw data, simply because it has to. It can be as simple as storage format — changing a raw binary value to a formatted storage value — or as complex as needing to parse (examine) the raw string of data to extract the desired component. Parsing, btw, is what you are doing while reading this. The report data will have gone through further changes for formatting, as well as for use in the calculations which display further results in the report.
Every non-programmer should be sensitive to the fact that displayed results may not represent the raw data. The issue is not in the formatting changes, but in how the data is processed and the decisions they (the scientists) make about those processes. The caution that “there is no such thing as an average” whatever is true on the face of it, but misses the point of such “manipulations” of data. A calculated result, whether for descriptive or statistical purpose doesn’t matter, is still valid.
That is why we ignore people who cite local data as refutation. “It ain’t getting warmer here” (for example) is a null assertion, because it says nothing about the phenomenon being measured or described.
“Garbage in, garbage out” refers to the relevance of the input data to the requirements and intentions of the process. The validity of the data collection methods informs the relevance of the decisions made in setting the requirements and intentions, and is not a critique per se of the data itself.

“But does any of this bear on the global warming issue? No. No more than corrupt and dishonest Catholic bishops discredit spirituality.”
hmmm, for this to be a valid compairson, Catholic Bishops would have to run computer models for spirtuality, in an attempt to prove it exists and can be observed. (which they dont)
Then to complete the comparison, the bishops source code would have to be leaked, with comments documenting intentionally faking/corrupting the data:
==============
REM lets make this work out right….
var GodExists = true;
setReligionTo(“Catholic”);
==============
LOL.
Thats what climateGATE is really about. The emails are just the tip of the not melting iceberg. The real crimes exposed are found in the climate modeling code also leaked. They intentionally reverse engineered the data to make up the results, and commented their activities to do so. That is what is leaked, that is why its CLIMATEGATE.

No- the comparison is valid in the sense that corrupt or dishonest or unethical behavior in something does not discredit the activity itself. We have a very long history of organizations in every field acting unethically and equating what is good for them with what is good for the field. Science actually has a better record than most because good scientists are trained not to take their theories too seriously. Unfortunately, in organizations being a good scientists is not necessarily a requirement for leadership.
Bad code distorts some findings, maybe a lot. It messes up studies of causes, but it is most definitely not the end of the issue, which has been studied world wide and from many perspectives. It may be bad because it was done incompetently, because it was done to prove a theory and so is unethical, or it may have started as the first and then become an issue of the organization’s CYA whatever the consequences. Possibly it is not that bad. I dunno. And I am willing to wait till the scientific community sorts it out. If there is any lasting result, I hope it will be a requirement for complete transparency in research along with more solid research on the global warming issue.
There is plenty of quite independent evidence regarding global warming. i.e. melting Arctic and Antarctic ice and shrinking glaciers world wide. So your not-melting iceberg example is particularly poorly chosen.

If you enjoyed Irwin’s links, you might also like the following:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

CO2 levels have only risen by .008% since the industrial revolution giving us a whopping total of .036% of Earths atmosphere, that’s point-ZERO three six percent, think about it. Before that there were many instances of “warm periods” where average temperatures were greater than what they are today, while CO2 levels were either stagnate or on the fall. Recently, during the last century and this decade, the average temperatures fell while atmospheric CO2 levels were rising, which have never been explained by so called infallible computer modeling or “respected” scientists. As a matter of fact such information has been repressed, and people’s reputations have been tarnished by merely disagreeing.
Further more during the 1990’s supposedly the hottest decade on record (from the data I have studied the 1930’s were actually hotter) NASA reported rising temperatures on Mars, Venus, and even poor little Pluto once a planet now just a dwarf planet, showed an increase in relative temperatures. The question is why and what is the common denominator.
The issue with climate gate is not whether data was tampered with, which some data may have indeed been tampered with, but that any reasonable debate was systematically repressed. Any data that would contradict the prevailing theory of man made global warming was repressed. These actions alone fly in the face of the scientific method. Furthermore, contrary to what is spoon fed by the media, there is no consensus as to the causes of global warming.
I personally believe in the need to develop a Hydrogen economy, but it will take time. The economic and quality of life effects will be amazing. Recently, low pressure H2 storage has been solved, and hopefully soon the infrastructure required to support Hydrogen technology will be a reality in our lifetime. If done properly, this could usher in a golden age of mankind.
However, I am unwilling to have the recent proposal of $100 billion annually redistributed to third world nations. I am unwilling to give up the sovereignty of this nation on a treaty that will have no effect on the climate what so ever, or any other reason for that matter. I am unwilling to accept data that is so flawed, that any person with reasonable intelligence can see that it is false.
The damage to the scientific community will be devastating, as well as to the media that were co-conspirators in this sham. The truth is coming out, and the truth cannot be suppressed forever. I guess it was very, very convenient that these “honorable” scientist discovered the effects of CO2 on our climate just in the nick of time to save all of our collective arses. Sounds a little fishy to me.
Unfortunately you took the time to defend a false theory and ridicule “the right” instead of sticking to the facts. It’s a sad way to rally the truly ignorant and close-minded “left.” I will be shocked to see if this post actually stays on this site, we will see if dissent is allowed on an open forum or not.

Justmike-
As you see, your post survived. I don’t have high standards to get published here, but I do have some standards. I am interested in reasonably intelligent discussion, which, if you’d taken the time to look around here, happens often and does not indicate anything like Groupmind or intolerance. Amid your invective there were some actual reasons given for your views. That qualified it for publication.
That said, your post doesn’t strike very many points with me because you made absolutely no attempt to actually read what I wrote (or if you did, you have the reading comprehension of a wombat and need not be taken seriously on these issues). More fundamentally, after demonstrating it in yourself big time, you assume the selective blindness or worse for thousands of people you do not know in the larger scientific community. Regarding the first, I explicitly and repeatedly condemned attempts at suppression of debate. Actually I went on at some length on the issue. Since you missed that and accused me of the opposite view, why should I read you further? Why should I assume you understood the scientists you attack? You obviously made no attempt to understand me.
But I did.
Your points about temperature and CO2, as you present them, are irrelevant. I am no climate scientist, but even I know that no single correlation regarding something as complex as our climate can be taken very seriously. I knew about warmer temperatures in earlier interglacials back in high school , and I am 62. You give other reasons, such as planetary temperatures and the sun. Without links. Maybe so. I trust the scientific community to discuss those issues more than I trust someone who cannot read my blog accurately to do so.
More importantly, I find the idea of a world wide scientific conspiracy to eliminate or reduce carbon use in the world when there is no threat rather insane. The conspiracy-laden record of the denialists is a long one. They have shown over and over again they have a hard time taking disagreeing opinions as anything but disloyal or traitorous. That means to my mind they have yet to really grow up emotionally beyond the level of a spoiled three year old who has a temper tantrum when thwarted. I use conspiracy explanations as a final resort when nothing else seems to explain something. You guys use it as your first because it replaces the hard work of trying to understand people who disagree with you.
I respect modern science as the best thing humanity has ever developed to discover reliable knowledge about the physical world. Nothing else comes close. I am truly unqualified to understand research subtleties and so it seems obvious, are you. But because of its track record for 300 years, I trust the long run accuracy of science within its domains – with no guarantee of its correctness about any single assertion at any time. In other words, it is possible the majority of scientists might be wrong about global warming. I sure hope so because denialists are preventing even minimally intelligent responses to the issue if they are right.
I obviously think modern science can be wrong, or I’d not be a Pagan. So why do I think science is mistaken in some areas, but not regarding global warming issues? Easy, actually. I know many people who along with me have experienced spiritual phenomena. Most are honest and level headed. So we have experience plus reliability of character. I know leading figures on your own side to be liars, plaigerizers, and otherwise disreputable. Evidence? See http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/17/wegman-report-ghostwriter-revealed/ Additionally, a high percentage of deniers I have encountered have been on the wrong sides of many other issues in the past, employ ad hominem arguments as their preferred approach, deny the relevance of scientific competence, or assume that scientists are not competent at science whereas buffoons like Limbaugh and Inhofe are, and show no respect for accuracy.
Why in the name of the Gods should I take people like you seriously? I cannot think of one good reason. Maybe when you start dealing honestly or accurately with folks who argue differently from you, I will make a greater effort.

Thank you, you have proved my point.

Yes after reading various articles on the Climategate scientists and their integrity I have come the conclusion they are honestly mistaken about man made global warming. What do they think we are all a bunch of idiots? The climate changes naturally from time to time. Face it in a relClimategate scientists honestly mistaken
After reading various articles on the Climategate scientists and their integrity I have come the conclusion they are honestly mistaken about man made  global warming. The climate has changed naturally from time to time through out history. Face it in a relativly short period of time ten thousand years according to reputable scientists a sheet of ice a mile thick covered much of north America. It is gone today and we are living on that once ice covered land. This climate change theory is nothing more than an extortion attempt by the UN to steal billions of dollars from western nations. The political leaders of the western countries have gone  along with it because they found a way to extort billions in phoney carbon and other phoney enviromental taxes from their citizens to hand over to global corporations seeking to control the world. So as for myself an individual that has a mind of his own this whole issue is one huge scam a very expensive one for the tax payer. ativly short period of time ten thousand years according to reputable scientists a sheet of ice a mile thick covered much of north America. It is gone today and we are living on that once ice covered land. This climate change theory is nothing more then a concerted effort by poor nations e.g. the UN to extort billions of dollars from the richest countries. The western nations went along with because they found a way to extort billions in phoney carbon taxes from their citizens.

Rod- Reading articles and reading articles by people who know what they are talking about are two different things. Perhaps you could recommend some links?
Your second and third sentences contradict one another. Do you think we are a bunch of idiots…
By the way, the scientists have been exculpated from all the claims spread by the right wing about doctoring the data and all other serious misconduct. Not that they would mention it.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007080053