Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[Pens1566]

The flat earth that our sun revolves around is not warming up due to millions of tons of garbage we spew into the air. Carry on.

 

[dainthomas]

1) I gave you proof the data was significantly manipulated (esp. post-1960)...did I miss something here?

2) Urban heat adjustments make sense...but wouldn't it be nice if those who do these adjustments 'share' their methodology and calculations instead of fighting FOI requests for over 2 years?

Apparently you feel that the tree ring proxy data was manipulated for a valid reason...please share your thoughts.

I too would like to know exactly what mechanism caused trees to start growing differently in 1960. I'd like to hear an answer other than "95% of scientists say there is no problem so you have to agree."

 

[shira]

I watched a program last night called What Really Killed the Dinosaurs and I couldn't help but notice that there's quite a parallel between the "concensus" in that field and that of AGW.

The vast majority of scientists currently believe that the Chicxulub impact caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. However, there's a small group who disagree and who have uncovered quite a few valid facts that seem to show that the Chicxulub impact could not posibly have been the cause.

So who is right? Is it the vast majority, based purely on their majority concensus alone? Or could those who have found gaping holes in the Chicxulub impact theory be correct? The science isn't exactly settled. Nor are those in the minority quacks or goofball scientists because they don't go along with the mainstream beliefs. In fact, much like ACC, more scientists are slowly coming over to that small minority.

This constant appeal to the majority by the pro-ACC crowd is an argumentation fallacy in the first place. Scientists are humans and have as much propensity as anyone to jump on the train of popular belief before all of the facts are in. Assuming they MUST be correct because such a large majority buy into AGW is, well...you know what they say when people "assume".

And guess what? If powerful evidence accumulates that that ACC is false, then the scientific consensus will change.

That's how science works.

You seem to think that science is like religion, where one revealed "truth" is by definition true for all eternity. Think Christianity will EVER conclude that God doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't his son?

General Relativity isn't "by definition" true, despite what the general public may think of Einstein. If GR can't be reconciled with some of the consequences of quantum physics, GR will fall.

It's the religious fanatics that think that there's something wrong with science when a theory is discarded. They fail to grasp that science is not itself knowledge; it is merely a process designed to obtain knowledge.

 

[monovillage]

And your so-called point is what, exactly?

Those of you in the Church of Denial seem incapable of understanding that collected or derived temperatures need to be adjusted - upward OR downward - to correct for various effects, such as the heat-island effect or altitude or issues with proxy data.

And - no - it's not science at its best. It's science at its most typical.

Those of us that are skeptical of AGW want to know how the data is being adjusted and wonder why the scientists you have so much faith in refuse to release that information.

 

[DealMonkey]

I know more about both subjects than yourself....

And yet you've always failed to demonstrate that.

 

[DealMonkey]

Yes nancy pelosi - the "hacker" (likely someone on the inside anyway) is being looked into. Also, I do believe that the emails have been confirmed correct by those in charge.

Ah yes, forget about the actual issue - let make it about those who exposed it. That makes perfect sense....

I'm not "making it about those who exposed it," I'm simply asking the questions that aren't be asked.

 

[jonks]

And guess what? If powerful evidence accumulates that that ACC is false, then the scientific consensus will change.

That's how science works.

I think my tobacco analogy was much more applicable. Unless the majority of scientists who disagree with the consensus are funded by big-dinosaur.

 

[DealMonkey]

No, I never expected you or your types to actually address the issue/questions. I expected you to show your true colors and attack the messenger and attempt to duhvert the topic. While I'm disappointed you and yours chose to do that, my expectations weren't disappointed.

Look dude, we get it. You and your ilk don't "believe" in climate change or don't believe that it's caused by man. Whatever. I'd prefer to leave this to the experts who understand climate science and science in general, and not some moronic bloggers or some morons on a message board who don't have clue one about the subject.

The problem is, you and your non-believers have made this into a political issue. Why that is, I have no idea. At least, I can't figure out anything beyond the fact that you've historically poked fun at the notion of environmental protections, made hysterical claims about the cost of environmental protection (while ignoring the costs of not doing anything), and in general acted like obstructionist idiots whenever the notion of protecting the planet comes up.

So maybe you should explain yourself? Just how and why do you find yourself on the short end of the scientific consensus? You're cheap and you don't want to pay any extra in order to live on a planet that isn't consumed by pollution, or isn't destroyed by shifting climate patterns? Just WTF makes people like you tick?

 

[GoPackGo]

Look dude, we get it. You and your ilk don't "believe" in climate change or don't believe that it's caused by man. Whatever. I'd prefer to leave this to the experts who understand climate science and science in general, and not some moronic bloggers or some morons on a message board who don't have clue one about the subject.

The problem is, you and your non-believers have made this into a political issue. Why that is, I have no idea. At least, I can't figure out anything beyond the fact that you've historically poked fun at the notion of environmental protections, made hysterical claims about the cost of environmental protection (while ignoring the costs of not doing anything), and in general acted like obstructionist idiots whenever the notion of protecting the planet comes up.

So maybe you should explain yourself? Just how and why do you find yourself on the short end of the scientific consensus? You're cheap and you don't want to pay any extra in order to live on a planet that isn't consumed by pollution, or isn't destroyed by shifting climate patterns? Just WTF makes people like you tick?

Ask the folks in the Philippines right now if they feel the planet needs "protection"...

Anyhow...you refer to these scientists as if they have no personal agenda and are some pure being. To think otherwise promotes them to a level of religious leader / god.

Global Warming / Climate Change and the hysteria around it are a completely separate issue from conservation and not polluting.

If you can't see that then you have drunk too much kool-aid.

 

[IGBT]

Look dude, we get it. You and your ilk don't "believe" in climate change or don't believe that it's caused by man. Whatever. I'd prefer to leave this to the experts who understand climate science and science in general, and not some moronic bloggers or some morons on a message board who don't have clue one about the subject.

The problem is, you and your non-believers have made this into a political issue. Why that is, I have no idea. At least, I can't figure out anything beyond the fact that you've historically poked fun at the notion of environmental protections, made hysterical claims about the cost of environmental protection (while ignoring the costs of not doing anything), and in general acted like obstructionist idiots whenever the notion of protecting the planet comes up.

So maybe you should explain yourself? Just how and why do you find yourself on the short end of the scientific consensus? You're cheap and you don't want to pay any extra in order to live on a planet that isn't consumed by pollution, or isn't destroyed by shifting climate patterns? Just WTF makes people like you tick?

your political hacks masquerading as white coat scientists are the epitome of credibility aren't they?? even algore is back pedalling realizing he faces serious culpability on his alarmist scare stories. Even Tony Blair is in serious CYA mode. To hear a former head of state and global warming proponent finally admit to the "fraud factor" of this discredited climate catastrophe theory is remarkable.
The shameful thing about the London Times story is that if it is true, the liberal American news media have either missed or studiously ignored the story of the century: "global warming fraud" and the aborted attempt to craft a worldwide, economy-busting treaty based on fake science. More then likely they ignored it due to the fact they are willing accomplices in the fraud.

 

[jonks]

Look dude, we get it. You and your ilk don't "believe" in climate change or don't believe that it's caused by man. Whatever. I'd prefer to leave this to the experts who understand climate science and science in general, and not some moronic bloggers or some morons on a message board who don't have clue one about the subject.

Anyhow...you refer to these scientists as if they have no personal agenda and are some pure being. To think otherwise promotes them to a level of religious leader / god.

So we shouldn't listen to a worldwide consensus of scientific experts because you point out they aren't deities? Sounds like you have a problem with science in general. No one is saying scientists are gods, but they have decades of data, decades of studies, and have formed conclusions based on the data. No one is saying they can't be questioned. The whole point of science is to question. But you need to question in good faith and with opposing data which also needs to be vetted. I don't buy that every accredited national and international body on climate change, all of whom agree on AGW, is motivated by some bias or conspiracy. And if that's all you got, it's pretty weak.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The flat earth that our sun revolves around is not warming up due to millions of tons of garbage we spew into the air. Carry on.

WOW!! You do have that last part right. Look up global dimming and give yourself a genius award.

 

[Blackjack200]

Ask the folks in the Philippines right now if they feel the planet needs "protection"...

Oh wow, haha, I can listen to George Carlin too.

Anyhow...you refer to these scientists as if they have no personal agenda and are some pure being. To think otherwise promotes them to a level of religious leader / god.

Ahh yes, vague non-specific innuendo about "agendas". They are all in Cahoots

It's all those well funded environmental groups pulling the wool over our eyes as Exxon and Texaco just stand there... HELPLESS :awe:

Really, the self-delusion is fascinating.

 

[Pens1566]

WOW!! You do have that last part right. Look up global dimming and give yourself a genius award.

Which could be masking even worse warming. Point?

 

[OutHouse]

The whole point of science is to question

funny, that is exactly what non-believers of man made global warming have been doing on here since all algore started his scare campaign and others like me got laughed at and called morons by the MMGW cultist. all we did was question and the pitchforks and torches arose in mass.

we are doing the same thing now with all the fraud that has come up int he past few weeks and wow the pitchforks and torches have come out in mass again.

 

[jonks]

funny, that is exactly what non-believers of man made global warming have been doing on here since all algore started his scare campaign and others like me got laughed at and called morons by the MMGW cultist. all we did was question and the pitchforks and torches arose in mass.

we are doing the same thing now with all the fraud that has come up int he past few weeks and wow the pitchforks and torches have come out in mass again.

Er, might want to have read my next sentence?

"But you need to question in good faith and with opposing data which also needs to be vetted."

You sit here as laymen "doubting" the documented conclusions of every accredited climate group in the world. You need to bring something to the table other than your skepticism. Otherwise you sound like bitter contrarians by nature. "Hey, we're just asking questions" is the disingenuous defense of obstructionists. I'm not asserting that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, I'm just asking if he did.

 

[Munky]

Er, might want to have read my next sentence?

"But you need to question in good faith and with opposing data which also needs to be vetted."

You sit here as laymen "doubting" the documented conclusions of every accredited climate group in the world. You need to bring something to the table other than your skepticism. Otherwise you sound like bitter contrarians by nature. "Hey, we're just asking questions" is the disingenuous defense of obstructionists. I'm not asserting that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, I'm just asking if he did.

In case you haven't noticed, we are way past the point of "just asking questions"

 

[bfdd]

Deal Monkey you act like the scientists who are studying climate know anything about it. So far everything they've tried to predict outside of just saying "it's getting warmer" is wrong. These are the same people who try to predict the weather for the next few days a fail. You really think they have this shit in the bag? Come on. No one denies that pollution and destroying our environment is a good thing, hardly anyone denies that the world is indeed warming, we're skeptical if we're the cause.

 

[spacejamz]

Look dude, we get it. You and your ilk don't "believe" in climate change or don't believe that it's caused by man.

Damn those GEICO cavemen for causing the Ice Age...not sure who to blame for the heat that finally melted it though...

wait a minute, there were climate changes on a global scale before man polluted our planet??? no way....

 

[fskimospy]

Damn those GEICO cavemen for causing the Ice Age...not sure who to blame for the heat that finally melted it though...

wait a minute, there were climate changes on a global scale before man polluted our planet??? no way....

Well that's pretty airtight reasoning! You should go let climatologists know there was an ice age in the past, I bet they just forgot.

If I ever am on trial for murder in the future I'll have to try your logic out too. "Well your honor, people have died for thousands of years before I was even here, how could I be to blame for this guy being shot?"

 

[bfdd]

Well that's pretty airtight reasoning! You should go let climatologists know there was an ice age in the past, I bet they just forgot.

If I ever am on trial for murder in the future I'll have to try your logic out too. "Well your honor, people have died for thousands of years before I was even here, how could I be to blame for this guy being shot?"

Except the police are much better at coming up with evidence to link someone to a murder than climatologists are at figuring out what tomorrows weather will be like.

 

[fskimospy]

Except the police are much better at coming up with evidence to link someone to a murder than climatologists are at figuring out what tomorrows weather will be like.

The leap of logic is either valid or it isn't. Which do you think our good friend spacejamz' post fell under?

 

[sandorski]

Except the police are much better at coming up with evidence to link someone to a murder than climatologists are at figuring out what tomorrows weather will be like.

That's not their Job. Fail.

That's the Job of Meteorologists.

 

[monovillage]

That's not their Job. Fail.

That's the Job of Meteorologists.

Could you please tell us who is a "Climatologist" Who they are and where they got their "Climatology Ph.D." ? I mean if we can only listen to Climatologists we should at least know the path to get there.

 

[spacejamz]

The leap of logic is either valid or it isn't. Which do you think our good friend spacejamz' post fell under?

give us a break already...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the planet has global cyclical changes that can take thousands, tens of thousand, etc of years to occur...nothing on this earth is permanent. or is that logic too much for you understand?