in scientific research. For example, what is this "hide the decline" all about? Why would scientists want to hide their data?
They didn't, and you'd know that if you read the whole chain as opposed to some out-of-context excerpt that just happens to fit your bias. "Hide the decline" had nothing to do with "hiding" anything, and a whole lot to do with finding and eliminating bad data.
Why wouldn't the CRU (Climate Research Unit at UEA) release their data sets as required by reputable journals such as "Nature."
Ensemble model runs produce petabytes of data. And that's just one data set. Peer-reviewers are of course granted access to the data as needed, but there's no conceivable way to "release" a terabytes and petabytes of HDF/NetCDF/GRIB/etc. files to the public short of a massive data farm, and people like you bitch enough already about "all the money being spent on science".
Why would they deny FOIA requests and conspire to find a way around them?
Because fucking idiots were making ignorant requests that would have wasted thousands of man hours and millions of dollars. But then again, that was the whole point of the FOIA requests to begin with. The "interested" parties had no interest in the actual data, and wouldn't even know what to do with it even if they got it. They wouldn't even be able to store it, let alone process it unless they happened to own their own super-computer.
Why would they seek to marginalize the "Climate Research" journal because some scientists had a contrary opinion, and why did they describe this as "plugging the gap" (their words)?
Having a contrary opinion is fine. Having a contrary opinion being published as reviewed science when supported by nothing but bullshit a college undergrad could rip apart is something else entirely.
Why did a hockey stick emerge from their data no matter what "red noise" was input to the program? (White noise is random; red noise is random from the last iteration, like stock market quotes)
That's a bullshit statement. Not once have I ever seen a single shred of credible evidence to suggest this ever happened. In addition, there are several models with source code freely available for your perusal. Feel free to find the models that behave in this manner.
And why did a hockey stick emerge only when the data was confined to the results of a single bristlecone pine tree?
For fuck's sake, are you stupid or just incompetent? Seriously, the first hits on google take you to several well-written blog entries over on Real Climate that give a thorough debunking to this nonsense.
And why was the fact that contemporary tree-ring data showed a DECLINE in temperature in contrast to very accurate modern thermometers conveniently hidden? Was it because if they don't work accurately now there is no reason to suppose they were accurate thousands of years ago, thus putting the lie to the paleoclimate temperatures?
There's ignorance, and then there's willful ignorance. You are being willfully ignorant. If you were honestly interested in learning the answers to these questions, you would have at least done a little bit of online research. Clearly, you are either incapable of doing that much or you deliberately don't want to.
When you read about these shenanigans it reads like a political backroom dealing attempt to hide shoddy research. I implore you to read "Hiding the Decline; a history of the climategate affair" by A.W. Montford. isbn:978-1475293364, too avail yourselves of the degree of fraud perpetrated by these folks.
Definitely one of the willfully ignorant if you're hauling out that worthless piece of trash. Do you really think the global warming is NEW? You think this was something scientist just cooked up in the past couple of decades? And you wonder why anyone with even a modicum of knowledge on the subject thinks deniers like yourself are just a bunch of fucking conspiracy nutters.
You want to be taken seriously? STUDY THE FUCKING SUBJECT. AGW was first hypothesized back in the 1820's by Joseph Fourier. It was first formalized (complete with a basic model predicting climate sensitivity to CO2) by Svante Arrhenius in the 1890's. The theory of AGW is OLD. As our technology and science has improved, so has our concepts of the dangers of AGW and the resulting climate changes it brings. It isn't some socialist tool to make climate scientists rich and powerful (they're not).
Read the exposed emails sent back and forth which prove all this.
Nothing like a bunch of out-of-context selectively chosen emails to gin up a bullshit controversy. I guess you'll just ignore the several investigations that took place and found nothing because...well... it doesn't fit your narrative.
Real the lamentations of the computer programmer assigned to try to make sense of all this as he says the data is a mess. One would think the members of slashdot could relate.
This means exactly dick. I've worked on climate models and will openly tell you the data is a mess. You've got data coming from different sensors, all with different calibrations. You've got data coming from satellites which have their own custom binary formats (and worse, the data itself can't be used until it has gone through multiple transforms). You've got data coming from multiple different studies, all with different scales, inferences, etc. All that data has to be normalized, transformed, screened for errors and biases, so on and so forth.
What, you think the data comes in a nice geo-temporal format all properly calibrated to kelvin at a nominal surface height? The raw data is veritable cluster fuck of formats, projections, biases, etc. that all have to be handled well before it touches a model.
Do you see why asking for the "raw" data is stupid? Unless you are familiar with the entire data pipeline, hardware used, etc. the raw data is pretty much fucking useless.
Why hasn't Al Gore been called to task for mixing up cause and effect on his giant graph showing correlation between CO2 and temperature? Turns out CO2 went up historically AFTER the temperature warmed. It's not a cause of warming temperatures, it's a result. But, as you may know, he won't debate anyone on the subject.
Well for starters, that's because you're claim is completely wrong. It's debunked on Real Climate. It's debunked on Skeptical Science. And there are plenty of other sites and even books on paleoclimatology that debunk that claim. But since your willfully ignorant, none of that really matters.
And for the billionth fucking time, Al Gore is not now nor ever been a climate scientists.
The climate may very well be warming. That happens when you are coming off an Ice Age
Well I guess that just happens by magic then, right? Nothing to do with basic chemistry or thermodynamics, right? The planet just warms up when it wants to.
And it may be caused by us (or maybe not), but the degree to which these scientists sought to cook the data is unprecedented and one has to wonder why they went to such trouble to do it.
And, once again, you're just making shit up. Svante Arrhenius back in the 1890's predicted a 2C rise. Right now, AR5 is showing the most likely rise to be 3C, a difference easily explainable by our much better understanding of the science as well as advances in technology. Yeah, the manipulation is clearly rampant.
They have made such a massive attempt to squelch opposing data that one wonders how they can look at themselves in the mirror and call themselves "scientists."
This is fraud on a massive scale, but who cares? The masses of people who aren't "scientists" won't be able to tell the difference anyway and we can just accuse them of being ignorant.
They're not "squelching" anything. A highschool AP physics student can work out a rough model of climate response to greenhouse gases in a couple pages of derivations. Determining the warming or how much is actually the easiest part of the problem to solve, and there is plenty of data available to back that up.
Then of course there's the absolute dumbassery of thinking a global cabal of climate scientists can somehow keep a massive worldwide conspiracy under wraps when even the most powerful politicians can't keep who they're banging a secret.
Tell you what. Post a nice paper for peer review showing how all the stupid scientists have gotten it wrong for the past 100+ years. You'd be an instant millionaire and win the Nobel Prize.