Scientific journal "Nature" finds nothing noteworthy in CRU leak

[randomname]

Climatologists under pressure

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).
Mail trail

A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.

The theft highlights the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers.

The e-mail theft also highlights how difficult it can be for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions. This is best done via open online archives, such as the ones maintained by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc-data.org) and the US National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html).
Tricky business

But for much crucial information the reality is very different. Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

The UEA responded too slowly to the eruption of coverage in the media, but deserves credit for now being publicly supportive of the integrity of its scientists while also holding an independent investigation of its researchers' compliance with Britain's freedom of information requirements (see http://go.nature.com/zRBXRP).

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

[randomname]

Why there's no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails


The leaking of emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, has led to a media and political storm. The affair is being portrayed as a scandal that undermines the science behind climate change. It is no such thing, and here's why.

We can be 100 per cent sure the world is getting warmer

Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and so on. Compare your findings with historical records, where available, and you'll probably find spring is coming days, even weeks earlier than a few decades ago.

You can't fake spring coming earlier, or trees growing higher up on mountains, or glaciers retreating for kilometres up valleys, or shrinking ice cover in the Arctic, or birds changing their migration times, or permafrost melting in Alaska, or the tropics expanding, or ice shelves on the Antarctic peninsula breaking up, or peak river flow occurring earlier in summer because of earlier snowmelt, or sea level rising faster and faster, or any of the thousands of similar examples.

None of these observations by themselves prove the world is warming; they could simply be regional effects, for instance. But put all the data from around the world together, and you have overwhelming evidence of a long-term warming trend.

We know greenhouse gases are the main cause of warming

There are many ways, theoretically, to warm a planet. Orbital changes might bring it closer to its star. The star itself might brighten. The planet's reflectivity – albedo – can change if white ice is replaced by darker vegetation or water. Changes in composition of the atmosphere can trap more heat, and so on.

It could even be that Earth isn't really warming overall, just that there has been a transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere.

Researchers have to look at all of these factors. And they have. Direct measurements since the 1970s make it certain, for instance, that neither the sun's fluctuating brightness nor changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting Earth are responsible for the recent warming. Similarly, direct measurements over the past century show that the oceans have warmed dramatically. The planet as a whole is getting warmer.

That leaves the rising levels of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere – which have been directly measured – as the main suspects. Working out how these changes should affect the planet's temperature in theory is extremely complicated. The only way to do it is to plug all the detailed physics into computers – create computer models, in other words. The results show that the only factor that produces anything like the temperature rise seen is the observed increase in greenhouse gases.

How do we know the models aren't wrong? From studies of past climate. To take one example, ice cores drilled from the Antarctic ice-sheet show a surprisingly close correlation between greenhouse gas levels and temperature over the past 800,000 years.

During this time, greenhouse gases have never risen as high or as fast as they are now. That means there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent of future warming – estimates of the effect of doubling CO2, including all feedback processes, range from 2°C to 6°C. But the big picture is clear.

Is it possible that tens of thousands of scientists have got it wrong? It is incredibly unlikely. The evidence that CO2 levels are rising is irrefutable, and the idea that rising levels lead to warming has withstood more than a century of genuine scientific scepticism.

So why are scientists "fixing" the temperature data?

Some of the contents of the hacked email material, such as the "Harry_read_me.txt" file, might appear shocking, with its talk of manipulation and "tricks". But raw data almost always has to be "fixed".

For example, suppose you and your neighbour keep a record of the temperature where you live, and decide to combine your records to create an "official" record for your locality. When you compare records, however, you're surprised to find they are very different.

There are many reasons why this might be so. One or other thermometer might be faulty. Perhaps you placed your thermometer in an inherently warmer place, or where it was sometimes in direct sunshine, or took measurements at a different time of day, and so on. To combine the two records in any meaningful way, you'll need to adjust the raw data to account for any such factors.

Not doing so would be pretty dumb. Where possible, scientists should always look at their data in the context of other, comparable data. Such scrutiny can often reveal problems in the way one or other set of data was acquired, meaning it needs adjusting or discarding. Some apparent problems with the predictions of climate models, for example, have actually turned out to be due to problems with real-world data caused by the failure to correct for factors such as the gradual changes in orbits of satellites.

The tricky question is where to draw the line. There is a continuum from corrections based on known problems (essential), to adjustments based on probable errors in the data (good practice as long as all assumptions are made clear), to adjustments done solely to make the data fit a hypothesis (distinctly dodgy).

It remains to seen if any of the adjustments described in the hacked material fall into this last category. But the mere fact that the leaked material reveals climate researchers "fixing" data is not proof of fraud. Manipulating data is what scientists do.

But what about that "trick" to "hide the decline"?

One of the leaked emails refers the "trick" of adding the real temperatures, as recorded by thermometers, to reconstructions of past temperatures based on looking at things such as growth rings in trees.

The problem is that some sets of tree-ring data suggest temperatures start falling towards the end of the 20th century, which direct temperature measurements show was not the case. So the researchers instead replaced the reconstructed temperature data for this period with the directly measured temperature data.

Is this an unjustified "fix"? No, because some sets of tree-ring data can be compared with the direct records of local temperature for the past century. Up until the 1960s, there is a very close correlation between the density of growth rings in trees in northern latitudes and summer temperatures, but after this it starts to break down.

We don't know why. It might be that the correlation breaks down whenever it gets too hot, in which case reconstructions of past temperature that rely heavily on tree-ring data will give a misleading picture. Or it might be due to some factor unique to the 20th century, such as changes in the timing of the snow melt, in which case it will not affect reconstructions.

The issue has not yet been resolved but there has been no attempt to conceal this or any of the many other problems with temperature reconstructions. On the contrary, the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, Phil Jones, and others whose emails were hacked, have published papers discussing it in prominent journals such as Nature.

What really matters is not how hot it is now or how hot it was a few hundred years ago, but how hot it is going to get. Campaigners have highlighted temperature reconstructions like the "hockey stick" graph because they are easy for people to understand, but in scientific terms they are not of great significance. We know the world is warming and we know that the main cause is rising CO2 levels. So with CO2 levels rising ever faster, we can be sure things are going to get a lot hotter.

But surely any attempt to block publication of sceptical scientific papers is indefensible?

Some of the leaked emails reveal the climate researchers' unhappiness with the publication of scientific papers questioning the global warming consensus, and seem to indicate a desire to remove editors at journals they perceived as being sympathetic to global warming sceptics.

This sounds horrifying to many non-scientists. But that is confusing two very different things: attempting to block publication in certain scientific journals and the suppression of information.

Scientific journals are only supposed to publish papers that meet certain scientific standards. Researchers work for years on papers and then submit them to the top journals in their field. The editors select the ones they think are most important or noteworthy, and send them to a handful of reviewers - scientists working in the same areas. Each reviewer sends back a report suggesting acceptance, rejection or revisions, and the editor decides whether to publish based on these reports. Most papers sent to leading journals get rejected.

This system of "peer review" has its critics, but is generally regarded as the least-worst system to ensure the quality of published scientific research. Researchers whose work is rejected can resubmit their papers to other, less high-profile journals. Failing that, anyone is free to publish their views on global warming online, or in books and newspapers if they can.

Respected scientists have agreed that the papers mentioned in the emails had serious scientific flaws and possibly should not have been accepted by the journals in question. If this were the case, it would raise questions about the role of the editors at those journals. It is hardly outrageous behaviour to call for the replacement of people who are, in your personal view, not doing their jobs properly.

What about apparent attempts to avoid freedom of information requests?

In some emails, Jones – who has stepped down pending a review of what went on – discusses ways not to fulfil requests made under the UK's freedom of information laws. In one, he calls on other researchers to delete certain emails. While on the face of it that does not look good, whether they broke any laws or breached any university guidelines remains to be determined.

In other cases, however, it is clear that researchers could not comply with freedom of information requests because they did not have the right to release all the data in question. There is also no doubt that climate change deniers have been using freedom of information requests to harass researchers and waste their time, with the CRU receiving more than 50 such requests in one week alone this year.

What's more, individual researchers have little to gain from giving away data and software they have spent years working on. Scientific careers depend on how many papers you publish. If you keep data to yourself, no one else can publish papers based on it before you do.

This does not mean researchers should be allowed to hold onto their data. It is undoubtedly in the public interest for there to be full disclosure of the measurements upon which climate scientists are basing their conclusions. In fact, much of it is already freely available. But the pressures climate researchers are under does help to explain why many are so reluctant to make all data public.

Clearly the leaked emails have caused disquiet in some quarters. There's no doubt there are concerns about the content of some of the emails – even when you know the way science really works – as laid out above. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia are now holding investigations to determine if anything unethical did go on. If these dispel uncertainty and restore the credibility of science, that can only be a good thing.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

[tangent4ronpaul]

Any bets on who wrote those 2 articles?

Interesting that they completely ignore little things like thermal islands, that the data used was often from poorly placed thermometers and that thermal sensing from space matches the "unmodified" data, not the ground sensor data. That some ice plates are in fact growing, and on and on...


During this time, greenhouse gases have never risen as high or as fast as they are now. That means there is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent of future warming – estimates of the effect of doubling CO2, including all feedback processes, range from 2°C to 6°C. But the big picture is clear.

Is it possible that tens of thousands of scientists have got it wrong? It is incredibly unlikely. The evidence that CO2 levels are rising is irrefutable, and the idea that rising levels lead to warming has withstood more than a century of genuine scientific scepticism.

http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/bio3/2000projects/carroll_d_walker_e/whatwentwrong.html


What Went Wrong?
As an attempt to create a balanced and self-sustaining replica of Earth’s ecosystems, Biosphere II was a miserable (and expensive) failure. Numerous problems plagued the crew almost from the very beginning. Of these, a mysterious loss of oxygen and widespread extinction were the most notable.

Catching Their Breath
Starting when the crew members were first sealed in, Biosphere II experienced a constant and puzzling decline in the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere. It was initially hoped that the system was merely stabilizing itself, but as time passed it became increasingly clear the something was amiss. Not quite 18 months into the experiment, when oxygen levels dropped to the point where the crew could barely function, the outside managers decided to pump oxygen into the system so they could complete the full two years as planned.

Obviously, Biosphere II was not self-sustaining if outside oxygen had to be added in order for the crew to survive. The reasons behind this flaw in the project were not fully understood until some time later. As it turned out, the problem had more to do with carbon dioxide than with oxygen. Biosphere II’s soil, especially in the rain forest and savanna areas, is unusually rich in organic material. Microbes were metabolizing this material at an abnormally high rate, in the process of which they used up a lot of oxygen and produced a lot of carbon dioxide. The plants in Biosphere II should have been able to use this excess carbon dioxide to replace the oxygen through photosynthesis, except that another chemical reaction was also taking place.

A vast majority of Biosphere II was built out of concrete, which contains calcium hydroxide. Instead of being consumed by the plants to produce more oxygen, the excess carbon dioxide was reacting with calcium hydroxide in the concrete walls to form calcium carbonate and water.

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 --> CaCO3 + H2O

This hypothesis was confirmed when scientists tested the walls and found that they contained about ten times the amount of calcium carbonate on the inner surfaces as they did on the outer surfaces. All of the walls in Biosphere II are now coated with a protective layer, but oxygen levels continue to be somewhat problematic.

Walking a Tightrope
The designers of Biosphere II included a carefully chosen variety of plant, animal, and insect species. They anticipated that some species would not survive, but the eventual extinction rate was much higher than expected. Of the 25 small vertebrates with which the project began, only 6 did not die out by the mission's end. Almost all of the insect species went extinct, including those which had been included for the purpose of pollinating plants. This caused its own problems, since the plants could no longer propagate themselves.

At the same time, some species absolutely thrived in this man-made environment. Crazy ants, cockroaches, and katydids ran rampant, while certain vines (like morning glories) threatened to choke out every other kind of plant. The crew members were forced to put vast amounts of energy into simply maintaining their food crops. Biosphere II could not sustain a balanced ecosystem, and therefore failed to fulfill its goals.
Other Problems
Biosphere II's water systems became polluted with too many nutrients. The crew had to clean their water by running it over mats of algae, which they later dried and stored.

Also, as a symptom of further atmospheric imbalances, the level of dinitrogen oxide became dangerously high. At these levels, there was a risk of brain damage due to a reduction in the synthesis of vitamin B12.

And of course, there were inevitable disputes among the crew, as well as among those running the project from the outside.

OK then! - all we have to do is ban concrete and fertilizers and problem solved! :D

-t

[idirtify]

I’ve always respected the writers over at New Scientist and those are some pretty tough arguments against anti-warmers. Of course there are a lot of writers and if anyone has any evidence of any funny business from over there, post it here.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Nature is a very respected journal and New scientist is a good lay magazine. What bothers me about these pieces is the information that is ignored.

-t

[virgil47]

Nature is a left leaning magazine so it's no surprise that they would discount anything that would harm the enviromaniacs attempt at one world government.

[awake]

Science is debatable. The the true issue is, and always has been, do we invoke and further grow the government, which can not solve the problem and will make it exponentially worse, or allow the an unfettered free market to provide the means to adjust through and mitigate the effects of the adaptation.

Free market exchanges delivered the security for all of us to exist today...otherwise we would have gone extinct long ago. Complete free exchange builds wealth, wealth provides the means to protect ourselves, which enables peaceful cooperation.

World government is achieving the opposite- chaos.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Nature is a left leaning magazine so it's no surprise that they would discount anything that would harm the enviromaniacs attempt at one world government.

You are apparently confused - it's a journal, not a magazine.

Welcome to Nature, the weekly, international, interdisciplinary journal of science.
Citations and Impact Factor

Nature is the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2008 Journal Citation Report Science Edition (Thomson, 2009). Its Impact Factor is 31.434. The impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a calendar year to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years. It is an independent measure calculated by Thomson Reuters, Philadephia, USA.
Aims and scope

Nature is a weekly international journal publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology on the basis of its originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions. Nature also provides rapid, authoritative, insightful and arresting news and interpretation of topical and coming trends affecting science, scientists and the wider public.
Nature's mission statement

First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life.

few samples from the TOC of their current issue:

Direct cell reprogramming is a stochastic process amenable to acceleration p595

Overexpression of certain transcription factors can reprogram somatic cells into induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells; however, only a minority of donor somatic cells can be reprogrammed to pluripotency. Here, this reprogramming is shown to be a continuous stochastic process where almost all mouse donor cells eventually give rise to iPS cells on continued growth and transcription factor expression; changing certain parameters results in accelerated iPS cell formation.

Jacob Hanna, Krishanu Saha, Bernardo Pando, Jeroen van Zon, Christopher J. Lengner, Menno P. Creyghton, Alexander van Oudenaarden & Rudolf Jaenisch

doi:10.1038/nature08592

Abstract | Full Text | PDF (681K) | Supplementary information

See also: Editor's summary
A gate–latch–lock mechanism for hormone signalling by abscisic acid receptors p602

The plant hormone abscisic acid (ABA) is a regulator of plant growth, development and responses to environmental stresses. Recently, the PYR/PYL/RCAR family of START proteins was found to bind ABA and mediate inactivation of downstream effectors. The crystal structures of apo and ABA-bound receptors as well as a ternary PYL2–ABA–PP2C complex is now reported and analysed, revealing a gate–latch–lock mechanism underlying ABA signalling.

Karsten Melcher, Ley-Moy Ng, X. Edward Zhou, Fen-Fen Soon, Yong Xu, Kelly M. Suino-Powell, Sang-Youl Park, Joshua J. Weiner, Hiroaki Fujii, Viswanathan Chinnusamy, Amanda Kovach, Jun Li, Yonghong Wang, Jiayang Li, Francis C. Peterson, Davin R. Jensen, Eu-Leong Yong, Brian F. Volkman, Sean R. Cutler, Jian-Kang Zhu & H. Eric Xu

doi:10.1038/nature08613

Extreme particle acceleration in the microquasar Cygnus X-3 p620

Super-massive black holes in active galaxies can accelerate particles to relativistic energies, producing jets with associated gamma-ray emission. Galactic 'microquasars' also produce relativistic jets; however, apart from an isolated event detected in Cygnus X-1, there has hitherto been no systematic evidence for the acceleration of particles to gigaelectronvolt or higher energies in a microquasar. Here, a report of four gamma-ray flares with energies above 100 MeV from the microquasar Cygnus X-3 illuminates this important problem.

M. Tavani, A. Bulgarelli, G. Piano, S. Sabatini, E. Striani, Y. Evangelista, A. Trois, G. Pooley, S. Trushkin, N. A. Nizhelskij, M. McCollough, K. I. I. Koljonen, G. Pucella, A. Giuliani, A. W. Chen, E. Costa, V. Vittorini, M. Trifoglio, F. Gianotti, A. Argan, G. Barbiellini, P. Caraveo, P. W. Cattaneo, V. Cocco, T. Contessi, F. D'Ammando, E. Del Monte, G. De Paris, G. Di Cocco, G. Di Persio, I. Donnarumma, M. Feroci, A. Ferrari, F. Fuschino, M. Galli, C. Labanti, I. Lapshov, F. Lazzarotto, P. Lipari, F. Longo, E. Mattaini, M. Marisaldi, M. Mastropietro, A. Mauri, S. Mereghetti, E. Morelli, A. Morselli, L. Pacciani, A. Pellizzoni, F. Perotti, P. Picozza, M. Pilia, M. Prest, M. Rapisarda, A. Rappoldi, E. Rossi, A. Rubini, E. Scalise, P. Soffitta, E. Vallazza, S. Vercellone, A. Zambra, D. Zanello, C. Pittori, F. Verrecchia, P. Giommi, S. Colafrancesco, P. Santolamazza, A. Antonelli & L. Salotti

doi:10.1038/nature08578

Synthetic magnetic fields for ultracold neutral atoms p628

Atomic Bose–Einstein condensates can be used to study many-body phenomena that occur in more complex material systems; however, the charge neutrality of these systems prevents intriguing phenomena that occur for charged particles in a magnetic field. Rotation can be used to create a synthetic magnetic field, but such fields are of limited strength. An optically synthesized magnetic field for ultracold neutral atoms that is not subject to the limitations of rotating systems is now experimentally realized.

Y.-J. Lin, R. L. Compton, K. Jiménez-García, J. V. Porto & I. B. Spielman

doi:10.1038/nature08609

Exceptional structured noncoding RNAs revealed by bacterial metagenome analysis p656

Existing DNA sequence databases carry only a tiny fraction of the total amount of DNA sequence space from bacterial species. Bioinformatics searches of genomic DNA from bacteria commonly identify new noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) such as riboswitches. Here, an updated computational pipeline is used to discover ncRNAs that rival the known large ribozymes in size and structural complexity; other such RNAs probably remain to be discovered.

Zasha Weinberg, Jonathan Perreault, Michelle M. Meyer & Ronald R. Breaker

doi:10.1038/nature08586

Microscopy: Ever-increasing resolution p675

Overcoming the limitations of spatial and temporal resolution to image within a cell is no easy feat. Kelly Rae Chi examines the latest diffraction-busting technologies.

Kelly Rae Chi

doi:10.1038/462675a

More PhDs for women p683

Proportion of US women earning science and engineering doctorates rises.

doi:10.1038/nj7273-683c

I'm guessing you've never seen a copy. They are having a 30% off sale right now so it's only $140 a year for a personal subscription. Even at $190 - that's incredibly cheap for a journal...

btw: I think they started publishing around 1886...

-t

[ClayTrainor]

I don't know what to make of these articles, i'm not informed enough on the subject.


Science is debatable. The the true issue is, and always has been, do we invoke and further grow the government, which can not solve the problem and will make it exponentially worse, or allow the an unfettered free market to provide the means to adjust through and mitigate the effects of the adaptation.

Free market exchanges delivered the security for all of us to exist today...otherwise we would have gone extinct long ago. Complete free exchange builds wealth, wealth provides the means to protect ourselves, which enables peaceful cooperation.

World government is achieving the opposite- chaos.

+1

Even if Global warming is true... the solution is greater respect for private property rights, not increased government power.

[angelatc]

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

This is very misleading. "Trick" wasn't the objectionable word. "Hide" (as in: hide the decline) was the issue.

Another point they don't bring up is that the scientists in those emails made sure that their peer reviews consisted only of peers who support their position.

It's insane. They're going to pass the biggest tax in the history of mankind, thrust the USA economically backwards at the never-ending expense of the parasite nations of the world, and they can't even make a clear case?

I'd rather die than see this crap destroy my kids' future.

[amy31416]

Nature is a left leaning magazine so it's no surprise that they would discount anything that would harm the enviromaniacs attempt at one world government.

This shouldn't be the case, but it's a fact that any publication run mostly by academics will be left-leaning. Some people use this to attempt to do some reverse-logic and say "see? all the smart people are lefties!" However, this is why (in my opinion) most academicians are left-leaning:

1. They go to school and are allowed the luxury of never really working, this is supported frequently by government aid.

2. Young people tend to be liberal idealists and you are always surrounded by these types.

3. Research grants. I've written a couple in my time and all it is is begging for the alleged intellectual elites. You're competing for limited amounts of money and have to put on a show to get it. Often, these grants are offered by people with an agenda, and, of course you slant your research to somehow match up with their agenda. You want their money and you are often ranked as a success or failure based not on your results, but on your ability to bring in money. It's very whorey.

The only non-liberal scientists I know personally, do not stay in academia. One went into patent law, another became a lawyer, several of us went into private industry/manufacturing.

The only people who have the stomach for the pseudo-world of academia are those who can't really function in the real world, doing real things and getting your hands dirty. The slant on the environment that malingers in the back of liberal academicians heads is that non-environmentalists are those greedy, capitalist, Humvee-driving pigs who oppress the poor, want to bomb shit and eat red-meat from inhumane factory farms. And this is their revenge. Even if the data doesn't support their conclusions, they're still only hurting bad people.

Yeah, I went over the edge a bit on the drama, but I'm definitely not entirely off-base.

[tangent4ronpaul]

This shouldn't be the case, but it's a fact that any publication run mostly by academics will be left-leaning. Some people use this to attempt to do some reverse-logic and say "see? all the smart people are lefties!" However, this is why (in my opinion) most academicians are left-leaning:

1. They go to school and are allowed the luxury of never really working, this is supported frequently by government aid.

2. Young people tend to be liberal idealists and you are always surrounded by these types.

3. Research grants. I've written a couple in my time and all it is is begging for the alleged intellectual elites. You're competing for limited amounts of money and have to put on a show to get it. Often, these grants are offered by people with an agenda, and, of course you slant your research to somehow match up with their agenda. You want their money and you are often ranked as a success or failure based not on your results, but on your ability to bring in money. It's very whorey.

The only non-liberal scientists I know personally, do not stay in academia. One went into patent law, another became a lawyer, several of us went into private industry/manufacturing.

The only people who have the stomach for the pseudo-world of academia are those who can't really function in the real world, doing real things and getting your hands dirty. The slant on the environment that malingers in the back of liberal academicians heads is that non-environmentalists are those greedy, capitalist, Humvee-driving pigs who oppress the poor, want to bomb shit and eat red-meat from inhumane factory farms. And this is their revenge. Even if the data doesn't support their conclusions, they're still only hurting bad people.

Yeah, I went over the edge a bit on the drama, but I'm definitely not entirely off-base.

You do make some interesting points, though my experience has been a bit different. Mostly I've been around people practicing medicine, as a lab tech in an ordnance lab and at an engineering uni. With the exception of one adjunct bio prof, no one that taught / did research in hard science or engineering was left leaning. The same could not be said for those in the social sciences.

-t

[amy31416]

You do make some interesting points, though my experience has been a bit different. Mostly I've been around people practicing medicine, as a lab tech in an ordnance lab and at an engineering uni. With the exception of one adjunct bio prof, no one that taught / did research in hard science or engineering was left leaning. The same could not be said for those in the social sciences.

-t

The people I knew in grad school were "lifers." Meaning they never had any intention of leaving academia and their careers were based strictly in research. Engineers aren't generally career academicians. The department I was most familiar with was biophysics and biotechnology, and I can think of one guy, whom I didn't know very well, who was very religious and probably not liberal.

Engineers and doctors aren't generally career academicians, so I'd consider them a different breed than the scientists who are likely to pore over environmental data.

Just my perspective though. I'm sure there are plenty of different experiences. :)

[acptulsa]

Move it along, people. Nothing to see here...

:rolleyes:

[virgil47]

This shouldn't be the case, but it's a fact that any publication run mostly by academics will be left-leaning. Some people use this to attempt to do some reverse-logic and say "see? all the smart people are lefties!" However, this is why (in my opinion) most academicians are left-leaning:

1. They go to school and are allowed the luxury of never really working, this is supported frequently by government aid.

2. Young people tend to be liberal idealists and you are always surrounded by these types.

3. Research grants. I've written a couple in my time and all it is is begging for the alleged intellectual elites. You're competing for limited amounts of money and have to put on a show to get it. Often, these grants are offered by people with an agenda, and, of course you slant your research to somehow match up with their agenda. You want their money and you are often ranked as a success or failure based not on your results, but on your ability to bring in money. It's very whorey.

The only non-liberal scientists I know personally, do not stay in academia. One went into patent law, another became a lawyer, several of us went into private industry/manufacturing.

The only people who have the stomach for the pseudo-world of academia are those who can't really function in the real world, doing real things and getting your hands dirty. The slant on the environment that malingers in the back of liberal academicians heads is that non-environmentalists are those greedy, capitalist, Humvee-driving pigs who oppress the poor, want to bomb shit and eat red-meat from inhumane factory farms. And this is their revenge. Even if the data doesn't support their conclusions, they're still only hurting bad people.

Yeah, I went over the edge a bit on the drama, but I'm definitely not entirely off-base.


I agree completely.

[devil21]

Is this the same "Nature", as in "Mike's Nature trick"? If so, they have a vested interest in denying any impropriety, lest their lofty journal status be badly damaged. I tend to ignore the pleas from those caught with their hands in the cookie jar already.

[misterx]

Have to agree with Nature on this one. There's no smoking gun in those emails. If they prove anything, it's that those scientists are convinced that we must do something about global warming.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Have to agree with Nature on this one. There's no smoking gun in those emails. If they prove anything, it's that those scientists are convinced that we must do something about global warming.

The e-mails bring us serious doubt... the smoking gun is the raw data and source code.

-t

[Anti Federalist]

We know greenhouse gases are the main cause of warming

Please explain what caused Martian ice caps to recede, and now, start to grow back as temperatures start to fall again.

Just as they are on earth.

Clearly, temperatures on earth have been much warmer in the past and much cooler.

Where I sit right now was under a glacier 100,000 years ago.

What is the argument here?

[ramallamamama]

move it along, people. Nothing to see here...

and go buy a plasma tv on credit. And some stocks.

Slave.

[Meatwasp]

This scientist was murdered with an aids virus tainted blood transfusion. She dared to go against the globel warming eco freaks in the 90's
http:llwww.vire.org/articles/59.html
I hope this works darn it I have trouble posting these things Ha

[sofia]

Have to agree with Nature on this one. There's no smoking gun in those emails. If they prove anything, it's that those scientists are convinced that we must do something about global warming.

did u even read the e-mails????

The phony scientists talk about "the travesty" of temp declines over past 7 years......and how to "use tricks of adding real temps back in order to "hide the decline"...

cant be any clearer than that

[LibForestPaul]

We can be 100 per cent sure the world is getting warmer

Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and so on. Compare your findings with historical records, where available, and you'll probably find spring is coming days, even weeks earlier than a few decades ago. - New Scientist

I actually subscribed to them for awhile. Nice scientific theory and empirical evidence Einsteins.


My ass is sweating more this August, must be global warming. Wheres a fauxenviroalarmist to save my sweaty ass.

[Meatwasp]

This scientist was murdered with an aids virus tainted blood transfusion. She dared to go against the globel warming eco freaks in the 90's
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/59.html
I hope this works darn it I have trouble posting these things Ha

..

[Chirac's Poodle]

Is this the same "Nature", as in "Mike's Nature trick"? If so, they have a vested interest in denying any impropriety, lest their lofty journal status be badly damaged. I tend to ignore the pleas from those caught with their hands in the cookie jar already.

Bingo.

[devil21]

We can be 100 per cent sure the world is getting warmer

Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and so on. Compare your findings with historical records, where available, and you'll probably find spring is coming days, even weeks earlier than a few decades ago.

I haven't brainstormed on this very long so please correct me if Im wrong. Don't we purposely manipulate our calendars and clocks year after year to try to keep some semblance of a "routine". How does leap years and adding seconds (done earlier this year), as well as daylight savings time to the clocks affect subjective "observations" like in the quote? If we allowed time to run it's course naturally, all kinds of historical "observations" would be worthless. January would be in the middle of summer eventually! Everything in our lives is manipulated, including our very sense of what "time" and "season" are.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I haven't brainstormed on this very long so please correct me if Im wrong. Don't we purposely manipulate our calendars and clocks year after year to try to keep some semblance of a "routine". How does leap years and adding seconds (done earlier this year), as well as daylight savings time to the clocks affect subjective "observations" like in the quote? If we allowed time to run it's course naturally, all kinds of historical "observations" would be worthless. January would be in the middle of summer eventually! Everything in our lives is manipulated, including our very sense of what "time" and "season" are.

Interesting thoughts... PROOF! spring coming earlier, early snow... :rolleyes:

-t

[misterx]

did u even read the e-mails????

The phony scientists talk about "the travesty" of temp declines over past 7 years......and how to "use tricks of adding real temps back in order to "hide the decline"...

cant be any clearer than that

Yes, I read them. The temp declines over the past 7 years are a travesty because they are statistically insignificant, but people with an unscientific mind will use them to keep everyone's heads buried in the sand.

[tremendoustie]

Yes, I read them. The temp declines over the past 7 years are a travesty because they are statistically insignificant, but people with an unscientific mind will use them to keep everyone's heads buried in the sand.

Good thing these propagandists scientists will hide the declines for us, then. I wouldn't want our little brains to get the wrong idea. It's the same reason I love how they generated those demonstrably fake hockey sticks, then deleted the original records. I mean, we morons could be confused by actual data. They need to enhance it for us so we get their message the scientific message.

I'm hoping the next ones will include predictions of locust plagues if we don't give all our money to Al Gore right away. I mean, it won't be accurate, or based on any real data or proven model, but at least it will keep those unscientific skeptics quiet. You know, the ones who skew and misrepresent data to accomplish their goals.

Those guys.

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.theclimatescam.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/global-warming.jpg

[idirtify]

Yes, I read them. The temp declines over the past 7 years are a travesty because they are statistically insignificant, but people with an unscientific mind will use them to keep everyone's heads buried in the sand.

Misterx,

In your opinion, at what point will the decline become significant? I’m no climatologist, so I am seriously asking. Eight years? Nine years? Ten years? Twenty? 100? What is the magic number?

[idirtify]

Aren’t there sufficient online tools which would enable us to get annual world-temp averages for ourselves? If so, fuck both the “experts” and authorities. Let’s get the numbers! How complex could the data/evidence be for “amateurs” to obtain/confirm? Let’s do it right here.

[LibForestPaul]

if the temperature of Tallahese has decreased over the last 5 years, but Detroit and NY have increased?

not quite easy to verify and check. Define world-temperature? Average vs Mean?

This is why they were trying to silence their critics. Because other experts can expose their shenanigans. People without such expertise can not, at least not without quite a bit of work.(or breaking in and "stealing' their emails) lol

[paulitics]

I’ve always respected the writers over at New Scientist and those are some pretty tough arguments against anti-warmers. Of course there are a lot of writers and if anyone has any evidence of any funny business from over there, post it here.

Why? these writers could be anybody. Just because it is written with sophicticated language does not make it scientific, intelligent, or truth based.

Here is one such New Scientist writer, who is a CFR member with a clear political agenda which trumps science. Judging by how this article was written, and anonymous at that, it was probably written by someone like this.

http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/michael_a_levi.html

[paulitics]

Any bets on who wrote those 2 articles?

I don't know, probably someone like this guy.
http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/michael_a_levi.html

[acptulsa]

if the temperature of Tallahese has decreased over the last 5 years, but Detroit and NY have increased?

not quite easy to verify and check. Define world-temperature? Average vs Mean?

This is why they were trying to silence their critics. Because other experts can expose their shenanigans. People without such expertise can not, at least not without quite a bit of work.(or breaking in and "stealing' their emails) lol

Well, here's the long and the short of it. These people are screaming and making their dire warnings, but have no more of a clue what's really happening and/or is going to happen than the scientists fifty years ago who were talking about how good red meat is for you, and how it would never do you any harm (while decrying the Oriental diet as lacking in albumens).

'We're just guessing, but don't let that stop you from being very, very afraid!!'

[devil21]

Well, here's the long and the short of it. These people are screaming and making their dire warnings, but have no more of a clue what's really happening and/or is going to happen than the scientists fifty years ago who were talking about how good red meat is for you, and how it would never do you any harm (while decrying the Oriental diet as lacking in albumens).

'We're just guessing, but don't let that stop you from being very, very afraid!!'

Seems like everything is based on fear these days. We're guilty of it too of course mainly in our economic views. This is why all the Hope and Change nonsense actually worked. Eventhough it has no basis in reality, people love to hear the positive spin. We're really just a feeble, timid species afraid of everything and our masters use it to their advantage constantly to get whatever they want.

[idirtify]

CNN is giving HUGE coverage of Climategate today, and I can’t see where the anchors are giving it a biased account overall. Many of their guests are making CRU look VERY bad. What about the other news networks? Anybody watching them?

[Bman]

The article gave me a good laugh.

The whole walk out in spring and see when the trees get leaves and flowers bloom, then compare that to historical records.

I guess I should also compare the snow that arrived in the mid-atlantic region last weekend to historical records also.

[idirtify]

Why? these writers could be anybody. Just because it is written with sophicticated language does not make it scientific, intelligent, or truth based.

Here is one such New Scientist writer, who is a CFR member with a clear political agenda which trumps science. Judging by how this article was written, and anonymous at that, it was probably written by someone like this.

http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/michael_a_levi.html

good points.

[GunnyFreedom]

The e-mails bring us serious doubt... the smoking gun is the raw data and source code.

-t

this.

[BenIsForRon]

It's funny how you guys accuse me of "attacking the messenger" when you do the same thing with these nature articles. They lay out a rather sound argument for these emails NOT being part of a conspiracy. Lazy, irresponsible... yes. But not part of a conspiracy.

That's just my take on the subject, but if the CRU does get multiple FOIA requests every week, as much as 50, how the hell are they supposed to respond to all of those?

Really, the FOIA parts of the emails are the only parts I really have a problem with. These guys should be working with the other side to facilitate the exchange of information, not slow it down.

EDIT: Let me clarify that last part, my problem is that they favored secrecy in the emails, seen in the way they talked about FOIA requests. It's ok to be mad at the people filing ten of them every week, but to actively try to avoid the acts is a huge problem. In the realm of science and information, data should never be hidden.

[devil21]

That's just my take on the subject, but if the CRU does get multiple FOIA requests every week, as much as 50, how the hell are they supposed to respond to all of those?

Really, the FOIA parts of the emails are the only parts I really have a problem with. These guys should be working with the other side to facilitate the exchange of information, not slow it down.

EDIT: Let me clarify that last part, my problem is that they favored secrecy in the emails, seen in the way they talked about FOIA requests. It's ok to be mad at the people filing ten of them every week, but to actively try to avoid the acts is a huge problem. In the realm of science and information, data should never be hidden.

They have a dedicated information officer on staff, who they consulted with, and apparently convinced that FoI requests were to be ignored. That was in the emails. Someone whos job is to handle FoI requests should be able to do 50 a week. Or hire another couple people considering the huge amount of (your) money the CRU was "granted" by multiple large governments and the UN. It's a cop out to say "Oh we couldn't handle all that responsibility! We're too busy saving the world." Makes no sense.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

The temp declines over the past 7 years are a travesty because they are statistically insignificant, but people with an unscientific mind will use them to keep everyone's heads buried in the sand.

You're gonna look awful fucking funny when you have shovel snow off your front lawn every day of the summer 20 years from now. The trending is going downwards and we may be headed into a Maunder-type Minima, if not something worse such as Glaciation.

[devil21]

You're gonna look awful fucking funny when you have shovel snow off your front lawn every day of the summer 20 years from now. The trending is going downwards and we may be headed into a Maunder-type Minima, if not something worse such as Glaciation.

I wonder if increased CO2 triggers ice ages instead of warming periods. Im not addressing whether manmade or otherwise since CO2 levels have been significantly higher through natural means historically. But Im starting to think that cooling and an ice age is the planet's response. Nature is all about balance. If the balance is out of whack then the planet naturally cures the imbalance. What better way than to cool everything down and trap CO2 into the ice and frozen grounds? The warming advocates say that CO2 makes the planet hotter. But how would the planet compensate to rebalance? Hotter temps means less ice and more water. Water can't trap CO2 and eventually fix the imbalance. This is assuming that high CO2 is even a problem in the first place btw.

This is what irks me about this whole "debate". The planet has survived, adapted, changed, etc for billions of years. From planetary ice ages to extreme drought and even continental drift where continents were in completely different parts of the world than they are today. Do people forget about Pangea? This planet has been changing constantly! I find it so arrogant (and even ignorant) to think that some cars and cows can destroy a planet when volcanoes and meteors never could. /rant

[BenIsForRon]

This is what irks me about this whole "debate". The planet has survived, adapted, changed, etc for billions of years. From planetary ice ages to extreme drought and even continental drift where continents were in completely different parts of the world than they are today. Do people forget about Pangea? This planet has been changing constantly! I find it so arrogant (and even ignorant) to think that some cars and cows can destroy a planet when volcanoes and meteors never could. /rant

What I'm worried about is mass extinction. We're in the 6th great extinction in the history of the earth (past ones caused by asteroids, volcanoes and so on). Most of it is due to pollution independent of global warming, but scientists do say that temperature changes are starting to put stress on animal populations in certain parts of the globe.

So the thing is, if you warm the globe faster than it has ever been warmed before, what are you going to end up killing. Will you end up killing anything important to human survival?

[devil21]

What I'm worried about is mass extinction. We're in the 6th great extinction in the history of the earth (past ones caused by asteroids, volcanoes and so on). Most of it is due to pollution independent of global warming, but scientists do say that temperature changes are starting to put stress on animal populations in certain parts of the globe.

So the thing is, if you warm the globe faster than it has ever been warmed before, what are you going to end up killing. Will you end up killing anything important to human survival?

And this is what I find ironic. The GW people are running around talking about how we're destroying the planet and whatnot, but the reality is that we'd only be destroying ourselves. Seems to me that those people are putting HUMANITY higher than the PLANET, even though they are trying to make it look the other way around. If they cared so much for the planet then let the planet get rid of the polluters like you, me, and them so the almighty planet can start over. But no...that makes too much sense and those that claim to love the planet so much really only love themselves.

YouTube - George Carlin on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg)

[CUnknown]

You guys really can't argue with or criticize the journal Nature on scientific grounds. As has been posted before on this thread, that's the most respected scientific journal in the world. They obviously know more than any of us do about the science of global warming.

[dannno]

They obviously know more than any of us do about the science of global warming.

Right, and the Federal Reserve knows more about economics than we do, too :rolleyes:

[BenIsForRon]

And this is what I find ironic. The GW people are running around talking about how we're destroying the planet and whatnot, but the reality is that we'd only be destroying ourselves. Seems to me that those people are putting HUMANITY higher than the PLANET, even though they are trying to make it look the other way around. If they cared so much for the planet then let the planet get rid of the polluters like you, me, and them so the almighty planet can start over. But no...that makes too much sense and those that claim to love the planet so much really only love themselves.

There is nothing wrong with trying to preserve a place on earth for humanity. Yes, we all care about the trees and the whales, but we want to be here to experience those things as well.

[Carole]

Why there's no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails
18:36 04 December 2009 by Michael Le Page

MICHAEL F. LEPAGE. EDUCATION. Master of Science,
Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University, 1981. Bachelor of Science, Mathematics, McGill University, ...

[devil21]

There is nothing wrong with trying to preserve a place on earth for humanity. Yes, we all care about the trees and the whales, but we want to be here to experience those things as well.

You in particular should watch the Carlin video in my quoted post above. He explains exactly what you said.

"They don't care about the planet. They only care about a nice habitat for themselves."

[devil21]

You guys really can't argue with or criticize the journal Nature on scientific grounds. As has been posted before on this thread, that's the most respected scientific journal in the world. They obviously know more than any of us do about the science of global warming.

That usually also means they know how to bullshit their way through most anything and not worry about being called out on it. If you can't beat them with facts, then baffle them with bullshit. Judging by the mess these emails and datasets have caused I think it's safe to say that not many people, Nature Magazine included, knows much about the "science of global warming" (used loosely).

I just went to Nature's website and was kinda surprised to see that just to read an article there you have to pay $32. Follow the money, my friends.

[BenIsForRon]

You in particular should watch the Carlin video in my quoted post above. He explains exactly what you said.

"They don't care about the planet. They only care about a nice habitat for themselves."

Everybody has already posted that video a thousand times. It has nothing to do with me.

Actually, you don't even know what he's talking about. He's talking about people that say "We've gotta save the planet!" That's not what I'm saying at all.

The planet will exist for billions of years after we pass on, what I want is for humans to find a way to stay on the planet for at least a few more millenia.

So at least I'm being honest. I'm a people firster. Sorry, I guess that sounds greedy, but I wish to maintain a beautiful and inhabitable planet for generations not yet born.

[devil21]

Everybody has already posted that video a thousand times. It has nothing to do with me.

Actually, you don't even know what he's talking about. He's talking about people that say "We've gotta save the planet!" That's not what I'm saying at all.

The planet will exist for billions of years after we pass on, what I want is for humans to find a way to stay on the planet for at least a few more millenia.

So at least I'm being honest. I'm a people firster. Sorry, I guess that sounds greedy, but I wish to maintain a beautiful and inhabitable planet for generations not yet born.

Not taxing them into poverty and hunger would be a good place to start, don't you agree? ;)

[CUnknown]

Right, and the Federal Reserve knows more about economics than we do, too :rolleyes:

The Fed has a political reason to lie to us and deceive us. Just in terms of their naked self interest, they have a lot to gain by setting interest rates, lending to certain institutions and not others, etc. The Fed is a part of the corrupt power structure of Washington.

The journal Nature does not seem to have anything to gain, one way or the other, by hiding facts or deceiving people. In fact, it seems like they would have everything to lose if they did that and were caught. And let me say it again: Nature is the most respected scientific journal in the world. That means nothing to you? Lots of very smart and principled people, both liberal and conservative, look up to Nature as a paragon.

Nature is not a political organization, not even in the slightest. They do not meddle in politics. Someone said Nature was liberal, or had a liberal bias, and I want to ask: Have you ever read or even looked at the journal? Can you glean the depths to which you have no clue about what you're talking about?

The Fed is evil. The Fed is a part of the conspiracy of global banksters. Many, many organizations are a part of this political/economic conspiracy. Nature is not one of these organizations. Not every organization on the planet is a part of a conspiracy. Why is it so hard to believe that Nature is politically unbiased and focused almost solely on science, and nothing else? What would they have to gain by being anything but that? What makes you think they are anything but that?