BrazilBoy Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 I wonder if Al Gore will change his movie title from "An Inconvient Truth" to "Dr.AlGore or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Money" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustPaus_88TSi Posted November 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor. NOVEMBER 21, 2009, 3:39 P.M. ET By KEITH JOHNSON The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit. Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet. The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence policy makers around the world. The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in climate models such as the IPCC's. A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash." The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views. Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate scientists have dismissed those claims. The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example. Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist. In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with. One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said. More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures. Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustPaus_88TSi Posted November 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 A sample of email quotes. Mick Kelly, of Jones’ CRU: "Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years." A selection of Phil Jones quotes from various emails: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.” “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails” “IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, …” “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” “..If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpaul98 Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 (edited) What this does which concerns me the most, is it gives insurmountable ammunition to the conspiracy theorist. I'll also no longer be able to trust any thing on the matter that isn't well supported -and- accepted -and- proven out over a long time period, which is unfortunate. My personal opinion : it's a natural global shift, it may last (continue) or may not (return to mid 1900's climate), but either way, we are making it more severe, and that is preventable. It's happened many times, recently. Look at ancient Egypt, it's almost a wasteland, but was not at the time they created their civilization, and it wasn't fossle fuels that caused it. I would be very supprised if the worst case came true in my lifetime, but I won't be supprised if there are negitive changes that can be measured that are/were our fault. I think a lot of the pressure to make big changes now is based on the fact that it will take decades to actually make a difference, so we are better to start now than to wait. Not unlike saving certain species that were going extinct by way of over hunting or habitat loss. Chad, the problem I have with what you said is that you don't believe there is or can be a conspiracy. Again, are you one of those people who so blindly believes everything government and experts tell you that you refuse to believe the facts right in front of you? I'm not a conspiracy theorist I just believe that not all people in high up powerful positions have our best interests in mind and they prove this time and time again. If you want to call it a conspiracy fine, you can also just call it global corruption because these scientists who we are taught to respect and look up to and believe are using that status to deceive and flat out lie to the world. If this "Global Warming" is proven to be a world wide conspiracy or lets just say an enormous hoax then so be it, this still doesn't discount the fact that there is global climate change happening. I am also for the long term SCIENTIFIC research that can PROVE that we are damaging the environment to the point that its affecting the climate. As it stands right now there is no solid data showing proof we are doing anything or could possible do anything to the environment that is affecting the climate including this junk science about our CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. That is just another way to push hard with the cap and trade agenda and how can you have another massive bill with nothing to tax to pay for it? It just wouldn't make sense would it? Just like water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas and greenhouse gasses are pollutants. Hummm, is anyone else thinking somethings not right here... We are intelligent people, put the pieces of the puzzle together, look at the picture and when you see it don't deny it. This is not environmental, its political and its financial. When a massive loan has been taken out for trillions of dollars and laid on the backs of future generations of Americans for repayment how do you think that will be paid back? Taxes, regulations, treaty's and what ever else they can come up with to take our money all in the name of some cause that's suppose to be for our own good. I hate to say it but the light bulbs better start coming on soon (meaning America better wake up) or their will be no value left of our dollar to speak of and the inflation caused by all the government spending will drive the cost of everything up double what it is now. All I can say is I'm glad this all happened before that global climate change treaty was signed. This definitely needs further investigation and these scientists that are caught lying need to start getting prosecuted starting with the head nut job himself Al Gore. Honestly if this is determined to be a complete scam all the money he made from this should be confiscated and used to actually do something good for our environment like deforestation, recycling and the polluting of our landfills and waterways. You know, things we can actually do something about. On another note, has anyone actually thought about where all those Chinese super duper energy efficient light bulbs are going when they burn out? You know, the ones with the mercury in them? Now that's something we can actually do something about, stop buying them. Edited November 22, 2009 by brianpaul98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 No, I didnt' say that, I said I'm worried about the conspiracy theorist going "the other way" with the subject. I belive the turth lises somewhere in the middle, their belifs are more radical than mine and they scare me for what they will do with this revelation. What would happen if it were revealed that Obama really were a muslim? Even if he didn't conduct his office in a destrictive way, the conspiracy theorist would go nuts and ruin any chance for him to complete his presidential funciotns effectivly. I feel the same process will occur with this, any chance of finding the "real" truth has been shattered by some selfish zelot scientist with personal adjendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonesh242 Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 OH MAN.......wonder how the gov will spin this... They'll spin it...just like everything else. They're a bunch of crooks!...from the top down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpaul98 Posted November 23, 2009 Report Share Posted November 23, 2009 No, I didnt' say that, I said I'm worried about the conspiracy theorist going "the other way" with the subject. I belive the turth lises somewhere in the middle, their belifs are more radical than mine and they scare me for what they will do with this revelation. What would happen if it were revealed that Obama really were a muslim? Even if he didn't conduct his office in a destrictive way, the conspiracy theorist would go nuts and ruin any chance for him to complete his presidential funciotns effectivly. I feel the same process will occur with this, any chance of finding the "real" truth has been shattered by some selfish zelot scientist with personal adjendas. Yes I totally agree with that, I'm sorry Chad I missed the point you were making. This IS the hard thing to deal with because like most of us trying to see the middle ground there are the extreme radicals out there that will take something like this to one or the other extreme or both. I am not for one side or the other exclusively because each side has very valid points to help protect this planet, the only planet we have by the way, that we all live on and these points could be addressed and could benefit all of us. The problem lies in the select few people that are doing what they are doing for the common good of themselves and we the people are just an annoyance that keeps getting in the way of their agenda. This earth doesn't belong to any one group, any one government, any one political party or any one religion it belongs to each and every person that lives here. The ultimate problem being that all these entities think they have the right to choose for all of us and their answer it right and all others are wrong. Hopefully some good will come from all this information that was uncovered and leaked and that good will benefit us all as a civilization and not just benefit a small portion of society's elites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mech Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 No response Chip? Youve been posting in other threads...so i know you read my response... You always have something to say...cat got your tongue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'd love to be able to be so nieve as to relax and beleave our government had our best intrests at heart , that big coorperations were fair in their dealings and could stop at a profit margin that we could live with , that auto makers made an atempt to build a car with value and quality as a main guide line , but sadly thats not been the case,, i've watch'd the auto and big oil companys make it SSOP to build in auto break downs ( built in failures)and cars that were just about throw away , and with gasoline mpgs that didn't manage to live up to what we were geting 40 yrs ago but are spending 10 times more for less ,,they honestly expect us to beleave their cars are more efficent then they were 40 yrs ago ,, when all you'd have done was install a $50 cat and nothing but water vapor came out the tail pipes I've watch'd our government sign agreements with other countrys to alow our business to out source tech suport and services puting 100's of thousands of people out of work,, watch'd them give out tax breaks to companys that move OUT of country for cheap labor AND NOT have to pay import tax to get the product back into this country,, outing more thousands out of work to open our borders to any one willing to work for less,, not as a haven to live but for employment reasons only so they can send moneys back to their home country our government has turn'd the worlds greatest manufacturing country into the worlds largest user not maker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted November 25, 2009 Report Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'd love to be able to be so nieve as to relax and beleave our government had our best intrests at heart , that big coorperations were fair in their dealings and could stop at a profit margin that we could live with , that auto makers made an atempt to build a car with value and quality as a main guide line , but sadly thats not been the case,, i've watch'd the auto and big oil companys make it SSOP to build in auto break downs ( built in failures)and cars that were just about throw away , and with gasoline mpgs that didn't manage to live up to what we were geting 40 yrs ago but are spending 10 times more for less ,,they honestly expect us to beleave their cars are more efficent then they were 40 yrs ago ,, when all you'd have done was install a $50 cat and nothing but water vapor came out the tail pipes I've watch'd our government sign agreements with other countrys to alow our business to out source tech suport and services puting 100's of thousands of people out of work,, watch'd them give out tax breaks to companys that move OUT of country for cheap labor AND NOT have to pay import tax to get the product back into this country,, outing more thousands out of work to open our borders to any one willing to work for less,, not as a haven to live but for employment reasons only so they can send moneys back to their home country our government has turn'd the worlds greatest manufacturing country into the worlds largest user not maker http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gifwell said.....I challenge anyone to go to any major store and buy products only MADE IN THE USA....good flippin luck...chances are you will walkout empty handed.....so sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_sc/eu_climate_hacked_e_mails If would appear main stream media and science researchers are taking this faux science revealation seriously. Lets hope that whet ever they find, the truth is revealed to all with no twist, adjenda, or bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 http://news.yahoo.co..._hacked_e_mails If would appear main stream media and science researchers are taking this faux science revealation seriously. Lets hope that whet ever they find, the truth is revealed to all with no twist, adjenda, or bias.I do hope they change these crazy thoughts and see it for the fraud it truly is... BTW if we sign onto "Cap and Trade" we will be writing a 10 billion dollar check to many 3rd world countries every year to combat non-existant manmade global warming......Basically we would give up our soviernty... and would get taxed by foriegn nations for our carbon waste to again fight non-existant manmade global warming... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 i forgot about this thread. “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. what the heck is he even talking about? Keith's what. adding temps to WHICH series?? which decline are they hiding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 i forgot about this thread. what the heck is he even talking about? Keith's what. adding temps to WHICH series?? which decline are they hiding?They are adding temp digits to make global warming look real..To hide the decline in world temps....so the money train keeps rolling in.. Its the biggest fraud the world has ever scene luckily the americans are smarter than the euros on this as they fell hook, line, and sinker into heavy over taxation... As the word is slowly getting out from all this hacked data some euro countries are threatening to sue thier government for forcing taxes down thier throats...and they should... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 They are adding temp digits to make global warming look real..To hide the decline in world temps....so the money train keeps rolling in.. Its the biggest fraud the world has ever scene luckily the americans are smarter than the euros on this as they fell hook, line, and sinker into heavy over taxation... As the word is slowly getting out from all this hacked data some euro countries are threatening to sue thier government for forcing taxes down thier throats...and they should... That's an interesting interpretation. The interpretation I'm hearing most commonly is that these quotes are taken grossly out of context. If you read more than a few cherry picked lines you see real scientists, doing real science quite sincerely. It hasn't been big news because it was blown out of proportion from minute one, or so everyone who wasn't previously dead set against the idea is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Indeed, it's real easy to see what you want to see, in anything. Truth comes from releasing your expectations/biases and just doing the research. Same goes for economics, politics, religion etc... Climate change is the new hot topic with no real attainable answers. If you are fanatical in one direction about a specific topic, and others are fanatical about the same topic, but on the other side, chances are the true answer lies somewhere in the middle. Me? I'm still undecided about climate change, but I welcome any/all info. I know it's almost all tainted/biased in some way, one way or the other, but in the end if I see it all I hope to be able to pick out the real truth from it for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazarin Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Yeah, and the cops who beat the hell out of Rodney King were good officers who sincerely upheld the law for their entire careers - Up to that moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Yeah, and the cops who beat the hell out of Rodney King were good officers who sincerely upheld the law for their entire careers - Up to that moment. .................................................................................................................. maybe but some one with a vid cam is not always handy our sheriff got caught stealing $165k, swears in 4 years that was his first time , yep i beleave him ,,,,not nice thing is he never paid it back and did not spend a single day in jail he was paid $1.1 mill a yr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) Yeah, and the cops who beat the hell out of Rodney King were good officers who sincerely upheld the law for their entire careers - Up to that moment. What kills me about this isn't whether they intentionally set out to deceive anyone. That is debatable and somewhat interesting. What kills me is the hypocrisy of the source of the criticism in their demands for "intellectual honesty" on the part of scientists. Where else do they demand intellectual honesty? Practitioners of the "opposite" of science, religion, have been cooking the books since day one in their efforts to achieve their goals. Children who go to Catholic schools grow up thinking that french kissing can result in pregnancy. Priests in AIDS ridden Africa teach horrific lies about condom use because to them it's sinful to prevent a pregnancy. It would appear that telling the truth clearly comes in a distant second to accomplishing whatever your religious agenda might be. In fact, to the bulk of the anti-climate change clan, telling lies to accomplish your goals is standard operating procedure, whether they be personal lies told to oneself, or public lies told to children or whatever. Now all of the sudden this group thinks it's found a few indiscretions on the part of scientists and boy watch out. To these clowns that means the entire IDEA of global climate change is a flat out lie. By that standard any one of the dishonest acts I've mentioned, committed by religious leaders, could render an entire religious tenet (no Premarital sex for example) completely unfounded. Too bad they don't apply the same standard to themselves, but then again, that would require that they possess the intellectual integrity they have never exhibited themselves, but that they demand when it's convenient, except of course from their own religious leaders. It's no surprise. Edited December 3, 2009 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazarin Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 maybe but some one with a vid cam is not always handy our sheriff got caught stealing $165k, swears in 4 years that was his first time , yep i beleave him ,,,,not nice thing is he never paid it back and did not spend a single day in jail he was paid $1.1 mill a yr Point enforced. Who's to say the emails aren't just the tip of the iceberg? These people speak in person and on the phone - who knows that they said about these things that wasn't saved by a computer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazarin Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) And HERE COMES THE RELIGON CRUTCH. Seriously, we get the man in the sky is fake and they make tax free money on it. Carlin explained it the best. So tell me this, if it's not ok for the church, why is this ok for scientists? EDIT: Ok, you edited yourself there by the time I finished the above. But either way, the comparison isn't as similar as you state. Comparing the whole of religon to a small facet of scientific research is ridiculous. I could easily retort with, "Since these CRU employees are lying about global warmi-climate change, THE WHOLE OF SCIENCE IS FALSE! Gravity be damned!" Edited December 3, 2009 by Mazarin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) So tell me this, if it's not ok for the church, why is this ok for scientists? Great question. It's not ok for scientists. But it also doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the "anti-global climate change" fight by the standard the nay sayers normally apply. By the standard the intellectually honest apply, it is significant, and any "scientist" caught falsifying data to represent the result he "wants" to prove will be quickly shunned and removed from the ranks of respected scientists. But either way, the comparison isn't as similar as you state. Comparing the whole of religon to a small facet of scientific research is ridiculous. I could easily retort with, "Since these CRU employees are lying about global warmi-climate change, THE WHOLE OF SCIENCE IS FALSE! Gravity be damned!" I edited precisely because of this point you made. Good point. I get it. You're right. It wouldn't be an indictment on science as a whole. I didn't mean to say the "whole of religion". I meant what it says now. In short, I think if you can explain why you wouldn't considering it damning to the entire notion that fornication is bad if a few Priests lied to prevent kids from fornicating, we'll be on the right track. Or if you don't mind fornication then pick something you do mind. Abortion for example. Imagine a few preachers exchange some emails where they discuss how to distort facts and statistics to keep women from getting abortions. Would those individual preachers' behavior suddenly make abortion ok with you? Would you think this might be just the tip of the religious deception iceberg? I think there's a double standard pretty plainly in view here. Edited December 3, 2009 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowquest Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Chip, I don't think abortion versus climate change is a valid arguement. Now if you had said "that Jesus ever existed" or "the bible is real" or some such, I would agree with you. There would be a debatable issue there. I'm sure there are some emails floating around out there about how to make people feel bad about abortion. It doesn't make me feel any different about it knowing that. However, if you found emails from the Pope for instance, discussing the fact that they needed to "lie" to help convince people that God was real, that would be a similiar topic. Your argument seems to attempt to imply that climate change is a topic that is a moral question, not simply a true/false one. I disagree with that. There are only 2 questions in my mind about climate change, Is it happening? and If it is, are we responsible? Abortion on the other hand, is a moral question, Is it ok? That's not a question that can universally be true/false. It can't be proven by current scientific methods to be one or the other, it is a question that each person must answer for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmwii Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 In short, I think if you can explain why you wouldn't considering it damning to the entire notion that fornication is bad if a few Priests lied to prevent kids from fornicating, we'll be on the right track.it's not apples to apples though, chip. the standards of science and the standards of faith aren't the same. people use faith to justify their belief in religion, but we use facts to justify our belief in science. and where faith isn't subject to fact checking and peer-review and empirical scrutiny, science is. some guys debating how to snow the followers of a religion is just more of their millennia old modus operandi. paradox and contradiction and deception are their stock in trade. scientists, on the other hand, who operate on anything other than an objective level are out of bounds. spinning conclusions, cooking the data, suppressing outcomes that don't fit their desires - those are all unpardonable for a scientist. collect the data then make conclusions, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patra_is_here Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 ok, i have to quote this again, because maybe my reading comprehension is incorrect I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline so, the 'trick' was to ADD THE REAL TEMPS to his number series and the result was that it HID THE DECLINE. ???? the only way numbers can hide a decline is if the numbers show an INCREASE to the series in which they are contributing. meaning, the REAL TEMPS made the number INCREASE?!??! isn't that what he's saying. the real temps forced the graph to increase??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts