Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[monovillage]

That goes hand in hand with this article by SF Examiner writer Thomas Fuller.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-E...10m1d2-Global-warming-Frost-on-the-windowpane

"But now, as I work through the emails that constitute the bulk of Climategate, and look at how flagrant was The Team's disregard for ethics, honesty and human kindness, as I read of their willingness to flatten the careers of all those that opposed them, disregard the law and the scientific tradition, I have to say that what they did is just as severe, just as bad, as the worst I have seen in private business. I'm not exaggerating when I say that The Team could have been using Michael Douglas' role in Wall Street as a role model."

 

[werepossum]

Here's an article from the Guardian about farmers in Peru being threatened with death from the bitter cold, due to the cumulative affect of several years of extra-bitter cold. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold

Amusingly, the cold is attributed to - wait for it - global warming! No matter that the world is bitingly cold at the moment, that it has been getting colder, does anyone really doubt that once the climatologists add their "special sauce" they will proclaim that this year too was warmer than the last and the cause is proven to be man-made CO2? This is why so many people are turning against the theories of CAGW - warmer temperatures prove it, colder temperatures prove it, and if it's warmer in some places and cooler in others, then Katie bar the door. Whatever scientific underpinnings CAGW once had have long been lost in ideology - the new Green is nothing more than the old Red.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Here's an article from the Guardian about farmers in Peru being threatened with death from the bitter cold, due to the cumulative affect of several years of extra-bitter cold. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold

Amusingly, the cold is attributed to - wait for it - global warming! No matter that the world is bitingly cold at the moment, that it has been getting colder, does anyone really doubt that once the climatologists add their "special sauce" they will proclaim that this year too was warmer than the last and the cause is proven to be man-made CO2? This is why so many people are turning against the theories of CAGW - warmer temperatures prove it, colder temperatures prove it, and if it's warmer in some places and cooler in others, then Katie bar the door. Whatever scientific underpinnings CAGW once had have long been lost in ideology - the new Green is nothing more than the old Red.

So because a local temperature is super cold... this disproves global warming?

Now data fraud... yeah that disproves a few theories associated specifically with that data... but not that first point.

 

[werepossum]

So because a local temperature is super cold... this disproves global warming?

Now data fraud... yeah that disproves a few theories associated specifically with that data... but not that first point.

No, my point was that all weather phenomena are now blamed on global warming, not that a particular phenomenon proved or disproved anything.

 

[charrison]

Burt Rutan on climate change.

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.AGWdataAnalysis v11.pdf

Read it all. Shows how GW supporters have been hiding data to prove their points.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

John Coleman - Meteorologist and Founder of The Weather Channel
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

 

[Obsoleet]

Here's a link for you: http://sify.com/news/no-rise-of-atm...150-years-news-international-kbbqucaeeef.html

The % of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't changed in the last 150 years. So if it's remained constant since the onset of the industrial revolution how can it be responbsible for climate change?

I got a response from my friend in Finland. I was curious what he'd say to your 'irrefutable evidence'. I'm not a climate expert, but I've done enough reading and questioning that I'm convinced. I do rely on the experts. As you should with any expert in their field, they have an interest in maintaining their integrity and it's crazy to assume there's a worldwide climate conspiracy that they're all conglomerating into.

Now, I know you won't read this, and I likely investigated this in vain, but maybe someday when you remove the stigma that climate change is a political issue rather than a scientific issue you'll come around.

It's science, and the only place where climate change is a "debate" is in the USA. The GOP does not have something figured out that the rest of the industrialized world doesn't. It's absurd how they survive off knee jerk reactions.

If you need further refutation than this, I suggest you contact your local state university to debate or speak with a climate scientist and get all your questions and internet links answered. Or if you want to disregard it like you do many sources in your life that you have not investigated thoroughly, that is great.
I hope you have a good weekend.



"Its only a link to internet news site. Equal to any printed news paper. Without proper reference to the original article and writers, I would not even bother to look for it.

Beside CO2 increase is not based to...one source. Increases of CO2 have been measured on multiple locations on earth by multiple research teams and climate scientists. Yes oceans take loads of CO2 true...and oceans release CO2 as well and CO2 is a problem on oceans as our CO2 well since it make oceans acidic.....what is partly why multiple coral reefs and fishing areas have drop on their yearly production is thanks to acidic development on our oceans.

And claiming CO2 have not increase in atmosphere at ALL is little bit stupid since we know that on earth ecosystems have annual influx of CO2 to air when one hemisphere have autum and winter (plants don't grow and loads of plan material rot) and outflow of CO2 from air when its summer (loads of plants grow thus take loads of CO2 from atmosphere to themself's ). So CO2 amount in atmosphere is not constant but change all the time depending on witch part of the annual cycle our planet is on any given time.

I cannot forfeit the original article based on new site conclusion about it. Since often journalists are drooling retards that like to write about topics they don't know shit about. Original article after all could say something absolutely different than this journalist have write about it. Would not be first time to see how journalist have understood some science papers totally wrong."

 

[Obsoleet]

Not to mention this comment from the original link itself. LOL. Looks like my friend was right, the author did misrepresent the papers. Pretty typical to see this sort of crap. It's called PROPAGANDA (or sheer ignorance bordering on stupidity). But ya, I can't refute your news source either, it doesn't like the journal article it cites, and apparently, others have found it-

"Your article is entirely misleading. The paper merely states that the fraction of total co2 generated which remains in the atmosphere has remained constant. The paper does not imply there has been no increase in atmospheric co2, as your article implies. Shame on you."

 

[PJABBER]

It's science, and the only place where climate change is a "debate" is in the USA. The GOP does not have something figured out that the rest of the industrialized world doesn't. It's absurd how they survive off knee jerk reactions.

Your friend may be right, but you are wrong. This topic and the science have been in very hot contention all over the world.

Writers always cherry pick what they write, editors do not allow unlimited words. The quality of the writer is determined by what he or she chooses to cover and how. And what assignment editors require them to write. And many are ignorant and/or propagandists. Don't we all just hate drooling retards like that? Especially those in MSM that only get those jobs when they are certified to be such?

In any case, if the CO2 fractional amount of atmosphere remains constant even if the overall volume varies then it is unlikely to be a critical causative factor in climatic change patterns.

So your point is, what, exactly?

 

[Ozoned]

Your friend may be right, but you are wrong. This topic and the science have been in very hot contention all over the world.

Writers always cherry pick what they write, editors do not allow unlimited words. The quality of the writer is determined by what he or she chooses to cover and how. And what assignment editors require them to write. And many are ignorant and/or propagandists. Don't we all just hate drooling retards like that? Especially those in MSM that only get those jobs when they are certified to be such?

In any case, if the CO2 fractional amount of atmosphere remains constant even if the overall volume varies then it is unlikely to be a critical causative factor in climatic change patterns.

So your point is, what, exactly?

People like pretty pictures more than they like reality.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

This whole thing is delicious.

The hypocrisy of the God hating power whores (algore) is now plain to see.

 

[monovillage]

I got a response from my friend in Finland. I was curious what he'd say to your 'irrefutable evidence'. I'm not a climate expert, but I've done enough reading and questioning that I'm convinced. I do rely on the experts. As you should with any expert in their field, they have an interest in maintaining their integrity and it's crazy to assume there's a worldwide climate conspiracy that they're all conglomerating into.

Now, I know you won't read this, and I likely investigated this in vain, but maybe someday when you remove the stigma that climate change is a political issue rather than a scientific issue you'll come around.

It's science, and the only place where climate change is a "debate" is in the USA. The GOP does not have something figured out that the rest of the industrialized world doesn't. It's absurd how they survive off knee jerk reactions.

If you need further refutation than this, I suggest you contact your local state university to debate or speak with a climate scientist and get all your questions and internet links answered. Or if you want to disregard it like you do many sources in your life that you have not investigated thoroughly, that is great.
I hope you have a good weekend.



"Its only a link to internet news site. Equal to any printed news paper. Without proper reference to the original article and writers, I would not even bother to look for it.

Beside CO2 increase is not based to...one source. Increases of CO2 have been measured on multiple locations on earth by multiple research teams and climate scientists. Yes oceans take loads of CO2 true...and oceans release CO2 as well and CO2 is a problem on oceans as our CO2 well since it make oceans acidic.....what is partly why multiple coral reefs and fishing areas have drop on their yearly production is thanks to acidic development on our oceans.

And claiming CO2 have not increase in atmosphere at ALL is little bit stupid since we know that on earth ecosystems have annual influx of CO2 to air when one hemisphere have autum and winter (plants don't grow and loads of plan material rot) and outflow of CO2 from air when its summer (loads of plants grow thus take loads of CO2 from atmosphere to themself's ). So CO2 amount in atmosphere is not constant but change all the time depending on witch part of the annual cycle our planet is on any given time.

I cannot forfeit the original article based on new site conclusion about it. Since often journalists are drooling retards that like to write about topics they don't know shit about. Original article after all could say something absolutely different than this journalist have write about it. Would not be first time to see how journalist have understood some science papers totally wrong."

"As you should with any expert in their field, they have an interest in maintaining their integrity" LOL, what do you think Climatgate is all about?

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

The whole climate change business was developed by Liberals and other lazy Nations as a device to transfer wealth from the blessed to the cursed.

It won't stand up because of the science and the fact that Americans do not want their living standard lowered.

 

[Vette73]

John Coleman - Meteorologist and Founder of The Weather Channel
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

He is not a meteorologist. He is a weatherman at best.

 

[Obsoleet]

Your friend may be right, but you are wrong. This topic and the science have been in very hot contention all over the world.

No, it's not in contention. My friend doesn't have heated debates (no pun intended) with is fellow scientists, in fact they would ignore people who simply don't know. They're tired of warning you simply because you don't want to listen or pick up a book. Look up CFCs if you want to see another example of where science warned the world about impeding disaster, and disaster was averted because action was taken. The only reason this one is being fought is corporate and political (in the US only, out of the industrialized world).

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

No, it's not in contention. My friend doesn't have heated debates (no pun intended) with is fellow scientists, in fact they would ignore people who simply don't know. They're tired of warning you simply because you don't want to listen or pick up a book. Look up CFCs if you want to see another example of where science warned the world about impeding disaster, and disaster was averted because action was taken. The only reason this one is being fought is corporate and political (in the US only, out of the industrialized world).

I want to see the supporting data. I also don't trust the promoters of this theory, algore.

Opening up the data and sharing in a very open way might get you a hearing.

Otherwise, I see this as a scheme to extract cash from American pockets.

 

[monovillage]

The Mini Ice Age Starts Here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

 

[Fenixgoon]

No, it's not in contention. My friend doesn't have heated debates (no pun intended) with is fellow scientists, in fact they would ignore people who simply don't know. They're tired of warning you simply because you don't want to listen or pick up a book. Look up CFCs if you want to see another example of where science warned the world about impeding disaster, and disaster was averted because action was taken. The only reason this one is being fought is corporate and political (in the US only, out of the industrialized world).

CFCs destroying the ozone layer, afaik, was a very well known and proven phenomena. the ozone layer has since "healed" if im not mistaken.

how do you prove that a climate model is right? not to mention the earth has been warmer than this before, too.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Here's an article from the Guardian about farmers in Peru being threatened with death from the bitter cold, due to the cumulative affect of several years of extra-bitter cold. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/03/peru-mountain-farmers-winter-cold

Amusingly, the cold is attributed to - wait for it - global warming! No matter that the world is bitingly cold at the moment, that it has been getting colder, does anyone really doubt that once the climatologists add their "special sauce" they will proclaim that this year too was warmer than the last and the cause is proven to be man-made CO2? This is why so many people are turning against the theories of CAGW - warmer temperatures prove it, colder temperatures prove it, and if it's warmer in some places and cooler in others, then Katie bar the door. Whatever scientific underpinnings CAGW once had have long been lost in ideology - the new Green is nothing more than the old Red.

When the average global temperature shows no change and your ass is freezing during a cold spell it is called local weather. I just went through the wettest October, the warmest November, but a normal December on average, on record.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

When the average global temperature shows no change and your ass is freezing during a cold spell it is called local weather. I just went through the wettest October, the warmest November, but a normal December on average, on record.

Seriously...a normal December?!? Do you live south of the equator?

 

[GoPackGo]

Seriously...a normal December?!? Do you live south of the equator?

Here is the proof a mini-ice age is coming:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/

 

[WHAMPOM]

CFCs destroying the ozone layer, afaik, was a very well known and proven phenomena. the ozone layer has since "healed" if im not mistaken.

how do you prove that a climate model is right? not to mention the earth has been warmer than this before, too.

The Earth has been warmer and usually during an extinction event.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The Earth has been warmer and usually during an extinction event.

Really?!? Please elaborate.

 

[GoPackGo]

Left Wing Apologists....where are you?

 

[Jaskalas]

Left Wing Apologists....where are you?

lol Fauxnews link!

/left

Actually I was reading that too. Appears that AGW believers are now forced into admitting that the earth has natural and cyclical climate and that this is playing a big role in temperature and that it's going to get colder over the next few decades.

Their point is that while the temperature is falling, it would still have been colder if not for our CO2 contribution. So if it's 30 degrees below average, they'd say the normal without us would have been ~40 degrees below average.

Then they say a reckoning is coming during the next warming cycle.