Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[jonks]

or not

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html

 

[IGBT]

For what reason should they be in jail? I'd be surprised to see someone defending Madoff in anything, but then again you are a rightwinger, so anything goes.

apparently anything goes with your colluding "scientists" involved in purposeful fraud designed to fit a political agenda and shore up a universe of lies.

 

[JS80]

Racism, Global Warming and Barack Obama’s intelligence are three topics with which no one can expect a civil discussion. If you want me to laugh in your face, bring up one of these topics and try to treat it seriously. Frauds, hoaxes, manufactured problems. You can bet the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby will circle the wagons. They have plenty of willing accomplices.

I'll take a shot.

Racism - there is no more racism, and all races are racists (minorities more racist because whiteys are scared to be racist)
Global Warming - there is no global warming
BO's intelligence - highly suspect due to his refusal to release his SAT and LSAT scores. All I have to go on is that he got accepted to Occidental college, a 12th tier private school, and had to weasel a transfer to Columbia. Makes me think he's an affirmative action poster man.

 

[jonks]

BO's intelligence - highly suspect due to his refusal to release his SAT and LSAT scores. All I have to go on is that he got accepted to Occidental college, a 12th tier private school, and had to weasel a transfer to Columbia. Makes me think he's an affirmative action poster man.

lol. I guess his magna cum laude law degree was a hoax too. It's a Harvard cover-up!

Look, we know republicans are still embarassed that W and Palin are considered the GOP elite, but calling into question Obama's intelligence just makes you look like a whiny five year old.

IGBT, you can stop laughing at him now, it isn't nice.

 

[Pens1566]

I'll take a shot.

Racism - there is no more racism, and all races are racists (minorities more racist because whiteys are scared to be racist)
Global Warming - there is no global warming
BO's intelligence - highly suspect due to his refusal to release his SAT and LSAT scores. All I have to go on is that he got accepted to Occidental college, a 12th tier private school, and had to weasel a transfer to Columbia. Makes me think he's an affirmative action poster man.

I hear Glenn Beck still hasn't denied raping and murdering that young girl yet either ...

 

[Blackjack200]

or not

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html

Exactly.

OP should either cite some of the "damning evidence of data manipulation" or change the title.

 

[shira]

Shira, I read in several different reports that mans contribution of greenhouse gases (the ones defined as pollutants) to the atmosphere is less than 1/2 of 1% of the total. Is that correct???

Since the start of the industrial revolution, C02 levels have increased by 40%. It's highly unlikely that this increase - over such a short time span - is due to anything other than mankind's behavior. The percentage of C02 as a total of greenhouse gases is irrelevant. What's far more important is C02's contribution to the greenhouse effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere

The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eight times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide[6], but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[7]

• water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
• carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
• methane, which contributes 4–9%
• ozone, which contributes 3–7%

Thus, in the worst case, the anthropogenic increase in C02 to date has increased the greenhouse effect by about 3.5% (40% of 9%), and in the worst case by about 10%. And mankind is still adding to the C02 level - at a rate of over 2 ppm/year.

Note that this human contribution to the greenhouse effect is the "delta" over and above the baseline (= "normal" climate).

 

[IGBT]

Since the start of the industrial revolution, C02 levels have increased by 40%. It's highly unlikely that this increase - over such a short time span - is due to anything other than mankind's behavior. The percentage of C02 as a total of greenhouse gases is irrelevant. What's far more important is C02's contribution to the greenhouse effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere

Thus, in the worst case, the anthropogenic increase in C02 to date has increased the greenhouse effect by about 3.5% (40% of 9%), and in the worst case by about 10%. And mankind is still adding to the C02 level - at a rate of over 2 ppm/year.

Note that this human contribution to the greenhouse effect is the "delta" over and above the baseline (= "normal" climate).

all that info is based on the juggled and manipulated data from your agenda based "scientists". it's fraud thru and thru.

 

[IGBT]

Is anyone really surprised by this? This is an emotionally charged issue. Some of that emotion will be spilled onto the reasearch. Scientists cheat all the time.

you'd think the global warming koolaid drinkers would be dancing in the streets rejoicing that the sky is'nt falling and the whole thing has been a ruse.

 

[FerrelGeek]

you'd think the global warming koolaid drinkers would be dancing in the streets rejoicing that the sky is'nt falling and the whole thing has been a ruse.

Never happen. The climate change zealots are gonna forge ahead no matter what. This latest development means nothing to them.

 

[jonks]

FerrelGeek;28964387]

Originally Posted by IGBT
you'd think the global warming koolaid drinkers would be dancing in the streets rejoicing that the sky is'nt falling and the whole thing has been a ruse.

Never happen. The climate change zealots are gonna forge ahead no matter what. This latest development means nothing to them.

I know, right! Damn Exxon and their participation in the hoax of global warming. Why don't they tell the truth?

 

[IGBT]

Never happen. The climate change zealots are gonna forge ahead no matter what. This latest development means nothing to them.

no doubt. but sets the stage for lots of litigation and personal culpability down the road.

 

[shira]

or not

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html

You know, the selective posting of email excerpts - absent ANY context - by the climate-deniers is reminiscent of the slime-drenched "quote mining" technique used by the anti-evolution crowd a few years ago:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

You've gotta be pretty desperate to stoop that low. The fact that Spidey terms out-of-context emails among at most three or four individuals "damning evidence" - and how the rest of the climate-deniers on AT LEAP on this story - is a pretty good indication of the quality of their intellects.

 

[bfdd]

You know, the selective posting of email excerpts - absent ANY context - by the climate-deniers is reminiscent of the slime-drenched "quote mining" technique used by the anti-evolution crowd a few years ago:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

You've gotta be pretty desperate to stoop that low. The fact that Spidey terms out-of-context emails among at most three or four individuals "damning evidence" - and how the rest of the climate-deniers on AT LEAP on this story - is a pretty good indication of the quality of their intellects.

Yes because only people you disagree with go "quote mining" for things out of context.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I know, right! Damn Exxon and their participation in the hoax of global warming. Why don't they tell the truth?

Yes, yes. Only eeeeevvvviiiillllllll corporations lie. Try again.

 

[shira]

Never happen. The climate change zealots are gonna forge ahead no matter what. This latest development means nothing to them.

This "latest development?"

First of all, there's no basis to conclude that "this development" is anything but the ravings of the lunatic fringe. Furthermore, your reasoning - implying that climate research and the planning of appropriate social policy in the face of climate change should scream to a half because of alleged misconduct by a few scientists - is ludicrous.

Really, think about the principle you're implying: That the slightest evidence of misconduct by even one individual in a particular area (science, politics, religion, business - just about anything) justifies halting all activity in that area. Is this REALLY what you believe?

 

[spidey07]

Just google "Climate Research Unit". There's a new term for this deception, and it's being called "Climategate" or "Warminggate".

Here's a good analysis of the real tactics the e-mails show.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/11/24/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/

More articles on climategate.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/

 

[FerrelGeek]

This "latest development?"

First of all, there's no basis to conclude that "this development" is anything but the ravings of the lunatic fringe. Furthermore, your reasoning - implying that climate research and the planning of appropriate social policy in the face of climate change should scream to a half because of alleged misconduct by a few scientists - is ludicrous.

Really, think about the principle you're implying: That the slightest evidence of misconduct by even one individual in a particular area (science, politics, religion, business - just about anything) justifies halting all activity in that area. Is this REALLY what you believe?

/facepalm. Against any evidence to the contrary, we'll forge ahead!

 

[shira]

Yes because only people you disagree with go "quote mining" for things out of context.

Yes what? That the intellects of the climate-deniers are mush?

And since you've made an allegation about my principles, please produce evidence to back it up: Show where I've supported the tactics of ANYONE - left, right, or in between - who engages in quote-mining. I'm sure your evidence is of the same quality as mine that you enjoy sex with farm animals.

 

[shira]

you'd think the global warming koolaid drinkers would be dancing in the streets rejoicing that the sky is'nt falling and the whole thing has been a ruse.

Where do you get from the alleged misconduct of a handful of scientists to "the whole thing has been a ruse?" Are you really this stupid?

 

[shira]

/facepalm. Against any evidence to the contrary, we'll forge ahead!

Yes, absent any evidence that there's a grand conspiracy among thousands of climate scientists, research into climate change will forge ahead.

 

[sandorski]

Every knows that the World's Arch Villains met in Kyoto in 1971 where they hatched a Plan to take over the World!
==========Excerpt from a recently acquired Memo========

Evil Steps to Global Domination! bwuuuhahahhahah

1) Become a Climatologist
2) Create and Coordinate a Climatological Crisis
3) Promote Al into Politics
4) Fabricate and Coordinate massive false Data
5) ???
6) Victory!!!!
--------------------------------------------------

Isn't it obvious?

 

[werepossum]

Since the start of the industrial revolution, C02 levels have increased by 40%. It's highly unlikely that this increase - over such a short time span - is due to anything other than mankind's behavior. The percentage of C02 as a total of greenhouse gases is irrelevant. What's far more important is C02's contribution to the greenhouse effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_effects_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere

Thus, in the worst case, the anthropogenic increase in C02 to date has increased the greenhouse effect by about 3.5% (40% of 9%), and in the worst case by about 10%. And mankind is still adding to the C02 level - at a rate of over 2 ppm/year.

Note that this human contribution to the greenhouse effect is the "delta" over and above the baseline (= "normal" climate).

Three quick points. First, I don't think anyone outside of wikipedia or RealClimate believes anthropogenic CO2 increases are anywhere near 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Remember that the beginning of the industrial revolution also coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age (unless you're one of the true zealots who has revised out the Little Ice Age to make Mann's hockey stick graph work) and in particular an end to the especially bitter part of the Little Ice Age in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Remember that CO2 naturally lags temperature (plants respond more slowly to temperature increases than do animals) and thus CO2 would be expected to increase as the LIA ends.

Second, the greenhouse effect is subject to saturation and scattering. To truly relate the greenhouse effect linearly to CO2 concentration, one would have to show that all the available radiation in the spectra affected are not absorbed out. To show that a near-linear effect is occurring, one needs to show that a linear amount of radiation is being trapped and converted to heat in the atmosphere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the atmosphere has had little of the measured temperature increase; rather, the measured temperature increase has been largely in the oceans and on the land (and especially so around big cities, which are known heat sinks.)

Third, the fluctuations in temperature and CO2 are larger than the anthropogenic contributions, even assuming worst case. Assuming that anthropogenic CO2 production and associated temperature increases will cause catastrophe when natural oscillations did not assumes that there is something about manmade sources that make it not assimilate. To date, no such mechanism has been described, much less proven in repeatable studies.

 

[gsellis]

Wikipedia is edited strongly by its AGW supporting staff. It is not a reliable source. They probably even have Gore's new book cover up there as 'fact'... with the tropical cyclone of the Florida coast.

 

[spidey07]

Wikipedia is edited strongly by its AGW supporting staff. It is not a reliable source. They probably even have Gore's new book cover up there as 'fact'... with the tropical cyclone of the Florida coast.

Yeah, they even have an entry for Climategate.