Climate Cover up?

[seer]

Not much ascribing to do in this case. Lamar Smith didn't like the results of a climate study, couldn't find anything to attack in the science, and went on a rampage against the scientists. Folks don't abuse their positions like that just for fun. Pretty obvious he's been paid off.

Nonsense, perhaps he just thought he was being deceived.

No. None of that is true. Nobody but you and your recipient have ownership rights to your emails. Law enforcement agencies can subpoena them if they can convince a judge they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, but the government doesn't have a right to them, and the idea that they belong to the people is just absurd.

BS. Do my e-mails that I generate for my company belong to me or my company? These scientists work for us. Did the e-mails that Hillary generated for the State dept belong to her or the people?

[Leonhard]

You are ascribing motives to men elected by the people. You have no idea. And the point is that those e-mails belong to the people of the United States. These scientists need to comply to a lawful request by the Congress.

I asked you about whether there were laws in place about this or not. So far I'm hearing crickets.

[Leonhard]

Considering the manufactroversy generated by climate dissenters over leaked emails from climate scientists, quote-mining for anything that sounded scandalous (even if it wasn't), I don't exactly think the guys asking for these emails are in good faith.

[Leonhard]

Exhibit B of why conservatism in the US has gone bankrupt. Big Government Overreach is apparently fine in cases like this.

[seer]

I asked you about whether there were laws in place about this or not. So far I'm hearing crickets.

It is only common sense. Again Leonhard, when I generate e-mails for my company, on company business, do those e-mails belong to me or my company? The answer is self-evident.

[Littlejoe]

Most companies that I have worked for have specifically stated in a HR manual that any emails generated or received on the company's email system belong solely to them and are subject to scrutiny at any time. We had a salesperson walked out by the FBI for fraud due to interstate emails for close to $100K via our (former) company's system. We were the ones who turned her in.

[seer]

Most companies that I have worked for have specifically stated in a HR manual that any emails generated or received on the company's email system belong solely to them and are subject to scrutiny at any time.

Of course, that is standard practice.

[Leonhard]

It is only common sense. Again Leonhard, when I generate e-mails for my company, on company business, do those e-mails belong to me or my company? The answer is self-evident.

Lamar Smith is on a transparent crusade against an imagined conspiracy. It simple doesn't exist, and I doubt this will be the time he actually discovers evidence of it.

Remember the embarrasing CDU emails. Read in context they were entirely benign, dealing with how one out of a dozen temperature proxies had started to deviate for anomalous reasons. Climate dissenters spun a tail about global temperature going down, because one researcher had used the phrase 'hide the decline', when discussing how best to depict that portion of the graph.

Researchers were investigated, accused of being communists in disguise, Michael Mann of NASA was threatened, investigated and cleared (more than once even).

Even on tweb this hysteria affected people. I remember having to defend scientists from the accusation that they were fraudsters sucking grant money.

So yeah Seer I get why scientists are hesitant to give their personal exhanges to a hack like Lamarr Smith. That guy is on a quote-mining quest and has given no sign at all of any sort of intellectual integrity and critical approach.

He's out to punish scientists for daring to suggest that the holy oil companies have tried to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the fact of global warming, ala what the tobacco companies did with the health risks of smoking (first and second hand smoke).

It was, and is ridiculous, and its something conservatives in the US has got to grow out of. Or you'll get ready to lose to the liberals just about always from now on.

[seer]

Lamar Smith is on a transparent crusade against an imagined conspiracy. It simple doesn't exist, and I doubt this will be the time he actually discovers evidence of it.

Remember the embarrasing CDU emails. Read in context they were entirely benign, dealing with how one out of a dozen temperature proxies had started to deviate for anomalous reasons. Climate dissenters spun a tail about global temperature going down, because one researcher had used the phrase 'hide the decline', when discussing how best to depict that portion of the graph.

Researchers were investigated, accused of being communists in disguise, Michael Mann of NASA was threatened, investigated and cleared (more than once even).

Even on tweb this hysteria affected people. I remember having to defend scientists from the accusation that they were fraudsters sucking grant money.

So yeah Seer I get why scientists are hesitant to give their personal exhanges to a hack like Lamarr Smith. That guy is on a quote-mining quest and has given no sign at all of any sort of intellectual integrity and critical approach.

He's out to punish scientists for daring to suggest that the holy oil companies have tried to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the fact of global warming, ala what the tobacco companies did with the health risks of smoking (first and second hand smoke).

It was, and is ridiculous, and its something conservatives in the US has got to grow out of. Or you'll get ready to lose to the liberals just about always from now on.

Again Leonhard, you are ascribing motives to the man that he may or may not have. And again, these scientists need to turn over the peoples property. If it is all smoke it will go away soon enough.

[Leonhard]

Again Leonhard, you are ascribing motives to the man that he may or may not have.

This has all the smells of a witch hunt, even the way you slanted the title of the post tells me you see it that way.

And again, these scientists need to turn over the peoples property. If it is all smoke it will go away soon enough.

I still don't agree that they're people's property. Back when I was in college, and was sending emails back and forth to my mentor on the Campus grid, I had the feeling that the contents of the emails belonged to the campus. Not to the government. Sure if fraud was detected, I'm sure they would voluntarily give them up. The only reason you say its common sense that they should give them up involuntarily, is because you want to read them, or rather you'd want to see other people dig into them. Something I don't trust Lamar Smith, or his collection of fellows to do.

Has the NOAA agreed that any kind of scientific malpractice was going on?

Global Warming is not a conspiracy cooked up by Al Gore. The science of it is not merely done in the US. If the results of these articles were so horrendously off then there's no reason why other agencies wouldn't point it out in the internal scientific forum. No one have, so either its worldwide conspiracy, or there's no much to come for and Lamar Smith is tilting at windmills.

[Leonhard]

Or look at this way Seer.

As far as I know you can read up on all the corrections to the data, and why they were done, and all the data sets are completely accessible. So I'm not sure what Lamar Smith wants to find which isn't already accessible.

If its all available, why on Earth would he want to read the private exchanges? He can read up on how they calibrated the boey temperature data, correcting for timing issues and adjusting their scales to harmonize them with the ship temperature readings. All of this is entirely available, and transparently documented. Even the computer code used to analyse the data is available to anyone, and I can provide you with links if you want it.

Lamar Smith is accusing them of politically motivated making subtle alterations to the analysis, to bias it towards a particular result. Yet if he wants to argue that, all he needs to do is to look at their methods, which are online, or the computer code which can be downloaded by anyone. They've painstakingly documented the changes they've made, and why they're there as well as the difference it makes.

This tells me that he isn't interested in the science, or doesn't feel like disputing it (for some reason he simple doesn't believe it, go figure). And he wants the emails for... what? The only reasonable guess is quote mining, he wants to find something, anything. I don't know what. This is not someone doing things in good faith. This is a witch hunt, and I fully support the scientists not cooporating with it. If he wanted to do things in good faith, he'd ally himself with scientists who could verify the analysis, and do the steps.

Anthony Wattz himself supported something like that. He argued that Global Warming was really caused by heat island effect on weather equipment, located in bad locations, such as close to airconditioning systems or parking lots. A project was then launched to verify the temperature reconstruction, taking into account the state of the equipment. It was a project called BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures), unfortunately it ended up verifying the opposite conclusion Anthony Wattz had hoped for. He has later been either very silent or tried to distance himself from that project. That makes him a disingenous crank, but at least here there was a project along what you'd want.

Lamar Smith doesn't want that, or is doing that, he sees this whole thing as something political, and he's attacking the scientists directly.

[seer]

This has all the smells of a witch hunt, even the way you slanted the title of the post tells me you see it that way.

That is why I used a question mark.

I still don't agree that they're people's property. Back when I was in college, and was sending emails back and forth to my mentor on the Campus grid, I had the feeling that the contents of the emails belonged to the campus. Not to the government. Sure if fraud was detected, I'm sure they would voluntarily give them up. The only reason you say its common sense that they should give them up involuntarily, is because you want to read them, or rather you'd want to see other people dig into them. Something I don't trust Lamar Smith, or his collection of fellows to do.

Again Leonhard, do the e-mails I generate for my company, for company business, belong to me or my company? Whose property is it?

Has the NOAA agreed that any kind of scientific malpractice was going on?

That would be the fox guarding the hen house. Congress has lawful oversight.

Global Warming is not a conspiracy cooked up by Al Gore. The science of it is not merely done in the US. If the results of these articles were so horrendously off then there's no reason why other agencies wouldn't point it out in the internal scientific forum. No one have, so either its worldwide conspiracy, or there's no much to come for and Lamar Smith is tilting at windmills.

Like I said, it is not necessarily about AGW per-se but what liberals tend to do - using any excuse to control the population. I have no idea what Smith's motives are, I don't even know or follow the man.

[Starlight]

He's out to punish scientists for daring to suggest that the holy oil companies have tried to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the fact of global warming, ala what the tobacco companies did with the health risks of smoking (first and second hand smoke).

Not sure if you're aware of this, but presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been calling for an investigation of the oil companies with regard to them knowing about global warming and then launching a concerted PR campaign to lie about its effects, which would be analogous to the investigation that brought down the tobacco companies for knowing smoking caused cancer and launching a PR campaign to lie about that. (Under US law those things are a crime)

There's now decent evidence come to light that some of the oil companies found out about global warming as early as the 70s. What apparently happened was that they were interested in drilling in the arctic, but the ice was a problem, so they asked some of their scientists to look into it, and the scientists came back and said "well over time the CO2 that's being emitted from burning fossil fuels will cause warming that will mean there won't be ice in the arctic, so that'll solve your drilling problem." And the oil executives basically went "wait, WHAT?!" and demanded multiple further investigations which all told them the same thing. And so, panicked by the fact that climate change might lead to taxes and sanctions against their industry they then made huge efforts to spread PR on the subject, buy off politicians, etc.

If the Republicans had an iota of honesty about climate change, they wouldn't be doing their ongoing persecution of scientists by trying to read their personal emails and smear them, a tactic that has found diddly squat in the past, and they wouldn't be doing their eighth investigation of Benghazi, they would be subpoenaing emails from oil companies, and determining when they first knew about climate change, and seeing what they decided to do with that information. Unfortunately I can't imagine a corrupt shill like Lamar Smith holding up the email describing how the oil companies set out to bribe Lamar Smith and showing it to the world as proof of their oil companies wrongdoing. So unfortunately, the attitude is that they can't possibly investigate the oil companies' emails even once or investigate them even once, because you absolutely shouldn't look behind the curtain. Instead, just persecute the scientists. Do their emails suggest they were having an affair? Great. It proves they've got no moral character and their science isn't to be trusted because ~handwave~.

All the evidence at this stage points to the fact that there definitely is a conspiracy about climate change. A conspiracy by the oil companies to hide the truth. It needs to be investigated and prosecuted, just like it was for the tobacco companies.

[Jichard]

But the e-mails in question do not belong to said scientists, they belong to the people and the people have a right to see them...



http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...imate-research

Oh look, a scientifically-uninformed denialists is making up conspiracy theories about climate science. I'm so shocked.

"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.extract

"Characteristics of denialism

Identification of conspiracies: Denialists argue that scientific consensus arises not as a result of independent researchers converging on the same view but instead because researchers have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. They are depicted as using the peer review process to suppress dissent rather than fulfil its legitimate role of excluding work that is devoid of evidence or logical thought."

Anyway, tell me when you're intellectually honest enough to stop repeating conspiracy theories fed to you by conservatives, take Leonhard's advice, and actually read the darn research. Then maybe your claims on this topic will be informed.

The buoy temps were lower than the corresponding ship temperatures. So they adjusted the buoys up to match the temps:

"Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full


"Supplementary Material for Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/su...C1/Karl-SM.pdf

"Sea Surface Temperature

[Jichard]

I don't know if this is true at all that there wasn't a pause. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/2...data-tweaking/

This is your source? This crackpot website? My goodness, you might as well cite an AIDS denialist website as your resource when discussing virology. Please, please, actually cite some reputable sources.