Climate GATE....

[Buckeye_Nut]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Anybody keeping up with this story? Not much reported yet by the MSM......no big surprise. I'm sure there will be more hilarity to follow.

Truly hilarious stuff. As if these so called scientists and their "CRED" wasn't already running a bit thin? With their emails leaked on the web, they show who/what they really are.....


...and it's not pretty. It's definitely NOT about real science.

 

[lsiberian]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Anybody keeping up with this story? Not much reported yet by the MSM......no big surprise. I'm sure there will be more hilarity to follow.

Truly hilarious stuff. As if these so called scientists and their "CRED" wasn't already running a bit thin? With their emails leaked on the web, they show who/what they really are.....


...and it's not pretty. It's definitely NOT about real science.

not sure how you draw that conclusion. It seems highly illogical to do so based on this article. I understand many folks think there is not such thing as global warming, but I'd strongly and passionately disagree. Though I think climate change is a more appropriate term.

 

[JerryLove]

OP, did you RTA?

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

 

[lsiberian]

OP, did you RTA?

We can't trust you. We all know you are part of the conspiracy.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

not sure how you draw that conclusion. It seems highly illogical to do so based on this article.

Based on the above article no.....it only confirms the leak.


The damning evidence is what was in those emails............and it's not pretty.

 

[JerryLove]

The damning evidence is what was in those emails............and it's not pretty.

Such as what? Remember to make sure it's not easily explained as cherry-picking.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

Such as what? Remember to make sure it's not easily explained as cherry-picking.

UMMmm....like knowingly altering data to further their MM-warming agenda, and discussing it openly with one another. And the discussion of deleting such tampering evidence to cover their tactics.

It's already all over the web.

The leaked emails have outed them as political hacks pursuing a political leftist "big govt" agenda. stay tuned....the fun has only begun!!

 

[NicolasKL]

UMMmm....like knowingly altering data to further their MM-warming agenda, and discussing it openly with one another. And the discussion of deleting such tampering evidence to cover their tactics.

Like the quote that appears nefarious taken out of context but is explained in the article that you posted that it isn't hiding anything and isn't a trick at all? You really didn't read the article, did you?

 

[NicolasKL]

As stated in the article you posted, the big gotcha that every "journalist" and blogger and poster (including yourself, although you're not very specific, maybe you could try being moreso with your next post when you're telling us exactly what the damning evidence is) seems to be calling out, such as:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

is precisely the one that your article has already explained, and there's nothing nefarious, misleading, or deceitful about it.

http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2009/11/24/cru-hack-has-nothing-of-interest/

And a link from THAT article:

http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2009/04/26/big-energys-lies-and-deceptions/

I mean, Buckeye Nut, if one side of this debate being dishonest is going to sway your opinion, why wasn't it swayed towards believing AGM long ago, due to the deceptions of "big energy?"

 

[elcheapo]

not sure how you draw that conclusion. It seems highly illogical to do so based on this article. I understand many folks think there is not such thing as global warming, but I'd strongly and passionately disagree. Though I think climate change is a more appropriate term.

I guess climate change is a more convenient term... that way you can manipulate both ends of the temperature spectrum!

Listen to this interview on the radio with Van Jones, Obama's former green job czar. This is the true motive behind "climate change."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wh6AWCJdxg

 

[NicolasKL]

Please tell me that you're not saying that the primary motive for scientists attempting to make the world a better place by studying and making warnings re: climate change is to convert everyone to communism/socialism.

 

[vizionut]

We have to remember this world we live on a way older than we are. Yes we have changed the it alot but its nothing compared to what volcano's have done in the past. just remember the human race is just a small part of the of the big picture we call the universe.

 

[elcheapo]

Please tell me that you're not saying that the primary motive for scientists attempting to make the world a better place by studying and making warnings re: climate change is to convert everyone to communism/socialism.

I did not say it. One of Obama's former cabinet members says it unapollegitically. Stop being one of their sheep.

 

[JerryLove]

Global warming has been accepted fact in the scientific community since at least the 1970s. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Ocean acidification is equally clear and even more clearly caused by human emissions.

There's nothing in the released materials that would lead to the conclusion that a massive hoax has been on-going by thousands of scientists for more than 30 years.

The anti-climate-change argument feels a lot like the anti-evolution argument.

 

[Martiad3]

Global warming has been accepted fact in the scientific community since at least the 1970s.

Actually, global cooling was the accepted fact from the scientific community in the 70's. Wonder how that worked out?

Have a read at icecap.us. Actual meteorologists using science to poke holes in the global warming theories (yes, THEORIES).

*edit: and yes, I know these guys have their agenda too...but no more of one than the people on the other side of the aisle.

 

[JerryLove]

Actually, global cooling was the accepted fact from the scientific community in the 70's. Wonder how that worked out?

Certainly not from temperature data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

There *is* some support that we are in a cooling cycle, and that if not for that cycle, the warming would be far worse than it is. In short: that a natural decrease is mitigating a man-made increase in global average temperature.

Have a read at icecap.us. Actual meteorologists using science to poke holes in the global warming theories (yes, THEORIES).

The way you emphasize "theory" makes me believe that you don't know what one is.

Your link seems quite dedicated to pseudo-science: starting with a conclusion and finding evidence that might support it. Perhaps you would like to point out what you think is the most compelling evidence against global warming and we can discuss it.

*edit: and yes, I know these guys have their agenda too...but no more of one than the people on the other side of the aisle.

"The world-wide scientific community"? If anything those released emails prove it is that there is no such conspiracy. Certainly I personally have no reason to promote a false view. Assuming you do not either, one of us is being duped. Perhaps we should discover who?

 

[lsiberian]

Certainly not from temperature data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

There *is* some support that we are in a cooling cycle, and that if not for that cycle, the warming would be far worse than it is. In short: that a natural decrease is mitigating a man-made increase in global average temperature.

The way you emphasize "theory" makes me believe that you don't know what one is.

Your link seems quite dedicated to pseudo-science: starting with a conclusion and finding evidence that might support it. Perhaps you would like to point out what you think is the most compelling evidence against global warming and we can discuss it.

"The world-wide scientific community"? If anything those released emails prove it is that there is no such conspiracy. Certainly I personally have no reason to promote a false view. Assuming you do not either, one of us is being duped. Perhaps we should discover who?

Nobody's opinion matters. Facts are what matter. The facts clearly show the earth has warmed significantly in the last century.

clearly the data pulled from NASA shows Global warming is occurring.

Jerry, Comparing this to evolution is silly because evolution has far less evidence than global warming. Let's never tie the two together. It is a rabbit's trail not worth engaging. Global warming debate is far more important to our survival. If we don't deal with this problem we will make life much more difficult for ourselves. The fact is we have measured global temperature data that demonstrates global warming.

If we tackle this like we did the CFC issue we can divert a global disaster. If people stick their head in the sand and pretend it's not happening then we die. That simple.

 

[lsiberian]

The paleoclimatological data.

The amount of CO^2 corresponds pretty well with the increase in global temperature.

 

[JerryLove]

Jerry, Comparing this to evolution is silly because evolution has far less evidence than global warming. Let's never tie the two together. It is a rabbit's trail not worth engaging.

I said that the counter-arguments reminded me of one. The first hop down the proverbial rabbit trail, from where I sit, is you asserting a lack of clear evidence for evolution.

I'll leave it at "I disagree with that statement" and "that statement is mostly irrelevant to mine as I was speaking of the accusations of vast scientific / media conspiracies" of which the OP is a good example.

If we tackle this like we did the CFC issue we can divert a global disaster. If people stick their head in the sand and pretend it's not happening then we die. That simple.

Things will get really bad if this remains unchecked. One of the more annoying issues is that when you change behavior and when you see results will be quite separate. If we wait until it's "almost too late", it's well past too late. Even if we completely stopped contributing now, we would see continued warming for some time to come. Since we are expected to continue increasing our contributions, it will be much worse.

 

[annunaki]

Nobody's opinion matters. Facts are what matter. The facts clearly show the earth has warmed significantly in the last century.

clearly the data pulled from NASA shows Global warming is occurring.

Jerry, Comparing this to evolution is silly because evolution has far less evidence than global warming. Let's never tie the two together. It is a rabbit's trail not worth engaging. Global warming debate is far more important to our survival. If we don't deal with this problem we will make life much more difficult for ourselves. The fact is we have measured global temperature data that demonstrates global warming.

If we tackle this like we did the CFC issue we can divert a global disaster. If people stick their head in the sand and pretend it's not happening then we die. That simple.

Nice graph there. 1 grain of sand under a microscope can look huge. put that one grain of sand back on the beach and one gets a whole new perception.

We are using 1,000 years of data to make a hypothesis about a planet with 2 billion plus year history.