Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[railer]

"The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.'

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082,00.html#ixzz0bRSp9zTw

Yeah I copied that from Time. They are a part of the MSM, I presume?

Anywho, why is it that the right wingers are so obsessed with climate change? Do any of you study the climate as a profession? Are you scientists? Just curious, but I think I know the answer to both of those.


It's getting warmer or it isn't, we can do something about it or we can't. It's really that simple. You are an amusing bunch of little fellows tho, I will grant you that. Wth your constant bickering and blaming and conspiracies.

 

[werepossum]

"The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.'

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082,00.html#ixzz0bRSp9zTw

Yeah I copied that from Time. They are a part of the MSM, I presume?

Anywho, why is it that the right wingers are so obsessed with climate change? Do any of you study the climate as a profession? Are you scientists? Just curious, but I think I know the answer to both of those.


It's getting warmer or it isn't, we can do something about it or we can't. It's really that simple. You are an amusing bunch of little fellows tho, I will grant you that. Wth your constant bickering and blaming and conspiracies.

That would be because left wingers want to use climate change as justification for radically changing our largely capitalist, free society into a largely socialist unfree society where government controls every aspect of our lives and a small, self-selecting elite travels in black limousines and SUVs and in private jets while ruling a large mass of serfs who travel by bus and train. Notice when Algore asks if we will give up our automobiles he never mentions anything about his automobiles, or private jets, or many large homes?

 

[umbrella39]

I love that there's absolutely nothing left to defend you guys fall back on throwing out the race card even in the global warming debate. Good luck with that...

I love that when you have nothing to say you focus on one word in a long sentence and ignore the rest as if it had anything to do with racism. Good luck with that...

 

[monovillage]

"The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.'

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082,00.html#ixzz0bRSp9zTw

Yeah I copied that from Time. They are a part of the MSM, I presume?

Anywho, why is it that the right wingers are so obsessed with climate change? Do any of you study the climate as a profession? Are you scientists? Just curious, but I think I know the answer to both of those.


It's getting warmer or it isn't, we can do something about it or we can't. It's really that simple. You are an amusing bunch of little fellows tho, I will grant you that. Wth your constant bickering and blaming and conspiracies.

Thank you for that link. I'm glad to see that Time doesn't have a problem with scientists illegally destroying data that is a subject of a FOIA request. I'm not a politician or do i have a Political Science degree, in your world does that mean i can't comment or have an opinion on politics?

 

[Jaskalas]

Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict
Weather patterns were more like those in the late 1970s, experts said, while Met Office figures released on Monday are expected to show that the country is experiencing the coldest winter for up to 25 years.

A historic winter.

 

[monovillage]

Nothing like having a biased advocacy scientist to lead the Government about AGW.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/hansen-of-nasa-arrested-in-coal-country/

 

[Obsoleet]

Explain how CO2 is a pollutant. I'll go out on a limb and assume you understand the water cycle and photosynthesis.

People who are against climate change action are the same crowd that are lax on every other area of emissions regulation. CO2 certainly is a contaminant in large enough quantity (especially in the case that said quantity is man-made). Just like how you can become -intoxicated- with too much water. You don't have to make this that confusing, but your "view" on climate change tells me you are misled about many things.

Get off the internet where you can pass off propaganda as an argument, debate a climate scientist at your local state university and you'll find out how dumb you really are.

 

[monovillage]

People who are against climate change action are the same crowd that are lax on every other area of emissions regulation. CO2 certainly is a contaminant in large enough quantity (especially in the case that said quantity is man-made). Just like how you can become -intoxicated- with too much water. You don't have to make this that confusing, but your "view" on climate change tells me you are misled about many things.

Get off the internet where you can pass off propaganda as an argument, debate a climate scientist at your local state university and you'll find out how dumb you really are.

Too much water will kill you. Do you want the EPA to classify clean water as a pollutant also? As for telling someone to get off the internet, take your own advice.

 

[spidey07]

People who are against climate change action are the same crowd that are lax on every other area of emissions regulation. CO2 certainly is a contaminant in large enough quantity (especially in the case that said quantity is man-made). Just like how you can become -intoxicated- with too much water. You don't have to make this that confusing, but your "view" on climate change tells me you are misled about many things.

Get off the internet where you can pass off propaganda as an argument, debate a climate scientist at your local state university and you'll find out how dumb you really are.

Naw, I'll let all the consensus of other climate scientist who say CO2 is not a leading cause of climate change. The debate is over, the overwhelming consensus is it does not CAUSE warming and is an essential gas to life on this planet.

 

[Obsoleet]

Too much water will kill you. Do you want the EPA to classify clean water as a pollutant also? As for telling someone to get off the internet, take your own advice.

Ah, chime in guy! Nice to meet you.

I have confronted climate scientists in my past when I was also uninformed, misled and acted like the fool that you are. So advice was well given, from someone who's been in your spot. Now make said advice, well taken- before you embarrass your nation on the world stage even more.

Too much water (or CO2) can kill a lot of things, determined by quantity and environment. Many things in the world could have too much water (or CO2) and be a contaminant to a given environment. You can have product you use in small quantities (alcohol), which pose little threat, but use it in large quantities and you have a contaminant.
Like I said, you don't need to play a fruitless debate of semantics when you're going to remain wrong anyway in the face of science. But if that's what Fox News is instructing you to do, please continue.

 

[Obsoleet]

Naw, I'll let all the consensus of other climate scientist who say CO2 is not a leading cause of climate change. The debate is over, the overwhelming consensus is it does not CAUSE warming and is an essential gas to life on this planet.

Rea-lllleeeyyyy.. I see. I'm all ears to the guy with a fking bunny in his signature.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

And a spider man graphic. You're 12, have not finished school yet (includes college) and have no idea how science works, what it is, and how wrong you are. I hope you come around someday. I'll start you off, I suggest reading the HowStuffWorks article on climate change.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Rea-lllleeeyyyy.. I see. I'm all ears to the guy with a fking bunny in his signature.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

And a spider man graphic. You're 12, have not finished school yet (includes college) and have no idea how science works, what it is, and how wrong you are. I hope you come around someday. I'll start you off, I suggest reading the HowStuffWorks article on climate change.

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?

 

[Obsoleet]

I can't get to your link from here (I'm American but work overseas in an international IT role so I'm not in your time zone atm and I'm behind a corp firewall), but I'll be more than happy to take a look at this crap... once. I'll check your sources, and I'll try to get ahold of a good friend of mine who's a climate scientist in Finland later today.

I'm sure if I can't tear your link to shreds, he will. Like I said, I once didn't know anything about this, much like you. I'm no expert today. I've consulted with some experts, and now see through most of the anti-climate change faction's propaganda. If I ever come across something that appears credible to me, I shoot it at either an old professor of mine's way, or to my friend in Finland it's simply shredded as essentially a waste of time.
Now, you might think you're more knowledgeable with your internet links than these people.. but that's doubtful considering your stance on the subject to begin with. You don't just have doubts, you say it ISN'T the cause. Nice set up to fail there as the cards are already stacked against that side of the non-existent debate.

I'll be happy to take a look at your links, but I'm only going to run this by my climatologist friend once though, so it better be good, as it is a waste of his time.. just to make an example out of you dittohead.

 

[Jaskalas]

Get off the internet where you can pass off propaganda as an argument, debate a climate scientist at your local state university and you'll find out how dumb you really are.

So they can argue the merits of an unproven theory based on their faithful devotion?

They couldn't touch the ice core charts without destroying their own theory when CO2 follows temperature.

 

[Ozoned]

I can't get to your link from here (I'm American but work overseas in an international IT role so I'm not in your time zone atm and I'm behind a corp firewall), but I'll be more than happy to take a look at this crap... once. I'll check your sources, and I'll try to get ahold of a good friend of mine who's a climate scientist in Finland later today.

I'm sure if I can't tear your link to shreds, he will. Like I said, I once didn't know anything about this, much like you. I'm no expert today. I've consulted with some experts, and now see through most of the anti-climate change faction's propaganda. If I ever come across something that appears credible to me, I shoot it at either an old professor of mine's way, or to my friend in Finland it's simply shredded as essentially a waste of time.
Now, you might think you're more knowledgeable with your internet links than these people.. but that's doubtful considering your stance on the subject to begin with. You don't just have doubts, you say it ISN'T the cause. Nice set up to fail there as the cards are already stacked against that side of the non-existent debate.

I'll be happy to take a look at your links, but I'm only going to run this by my climatologist friend once though, so it better be good, as it is a waste of his time.. just to make an example out of you dittohead.

This thread is about data manipulation. WHY, if the theory is bullet-proof, is there a need to manipulate and hide the data?

 

[Babbles]

Too much water will kill you. Do you want the EPA to classify clean water as a pollutant also? As for telling someone to get off the internet, take your own advice.

The LD50 of water is something like 15 liters. It essentially dilutes the salt balance in your system and does unfortunate things like screws up the polarization and depolarization of cells and jacks around with neurotransmitters.

Paracelsus who is the "father of toxicology" noted that everything is a toxin, it just depends on the dose. Therefore water, CO2, O2, and so forth will all at some point become toxic, it just depends on the dosage.

I can't get to your link from here (I'm American but work overseas in an international IT role so I'm not in your time zone atm and I'm behind a corp firewall), but I'll be more than happy to take a look at this crap... once. I'll check your sources, and I'll try to get ahold of a good friend of mine who's a climate scientist in Finland later today.

I'm sure if I can't tear your link to shreds, he will. Like I said, I once didn't know anything about this, much like you. I'm no expert today. I've consulted with some experts, and now see through most of the anti-climate change faction's propaganda. If I ever come across something that appears credible to me, I shoot it at either an old professor of mine's way, or to my friend in Finland it's simply shredded as essentially a waste of time.
Now, you might think you're more knowledgeable with your internet links than these people.. but that's doubtful considering your stance on the subject to begin with. You don't just have doubts, you say it ISN'T the cause. Nice set up to fail there as the cards are already stacked against that side of the non-existent debate.

I'll be happy to take a look at your links, but I'm only going to run this by my climatologist friend once though, so it better be good, as it is a waste of his time.. just to make an example out of you dittohead.

Word of advice: Don't talk about tearing a link to shreds prior to reading the information yourself. That's not too scientific, and I would hope your friend would think so as well.

I think it is interesting that you appear to attack the previous poster's political bias (an assumption on your part) yet by doing so while not providing any sort of information yourself, you appear to expose yourself as the hack and not the other way around.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I'll check your sources, and I'll try to get ahold of a good friend of mine who's a climate scientist in Finland later today.

Oh... (putting aside the utter bullshit of that line for the sake of argument) I suppose your 'friend' isn't one of the fruit-loops cooking the books and strong arming the science journals, right?

I've consulted with some experts, and now see through most of the anti-climate change faction's propaganda. If I ever come across something that appears credible to me, I shoot it at either an old professor of mine's way, or to my friend in Finland it's simply shredded as essentially a waste of time.

You are classic...

Now, you might think you're more knowledgeable with your internet links than these people.. but that's doubtful considering your stance on the subject to begin with. You don't just have doubts, you say it ISN'T the cause. Nice set up to fail there as the cards are already stacked against that side of the non-existent debate.

The arrogance is strong with this one...

I'll be happy to take a look at your links, but I'm only going to run this by my climatologist friend once though, so it better be good, as it is a waste of his time.. just to make an example out of you dittohead.

Yeah, well... I'm going to run this through MY friend at the South Hamption Institute of Technology and maybe my OTHER friend at MIT and maybe even my buddy at the Climatological Learning Institute of Terblechistan... see what they have to say. :biggrin:

 

[IGBT]

"The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.'

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082,00.html#ixzz0bRSp9zTw

Yeah I copied that from Time. They are a part of the MSM, I presume?

Anywho, why is it that the right wingers are so obsessed with climate change? Do any of you study the climate as a profession? Are you scientists? Just curious, but I think I know the answer to both of those.


It's getting warmer or it isn't, we can do something about it or we can't. It's really that simple. You are an amusing bunch of little fellows tho, I will grant you that. Wth your constant bickering and blaming and conspiracies.

the emails are clear evidence of collusion,fraud and a willingness to defraud the public. They will be a source of law suits and litigation for years to come.

 

[cubby1223]

Rea-lllleeeyyyy.. I see. I'm all ears to the guy with a fking bunny in his signature.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

And a spider man graphic. You're 12, have not finished school yet (includes college) and have no idea how science works, what it is, and how wrong you are. I hope you come around someday. I'll start you off, I suggest reading the HowStuffWorks article on climate change.

Uh, yeah, so this only helps in proving your inability to draw conclusions that are anywhere even remotely close to reality.

Your skills of perception are severely lacking.

 

[cubby1223]

Get off the internet where you can pass off propaganda as an argument, debate a climate scientist at your local state university and you'll find out how dumb you really are.

All I have to do is point outside where it is fucking cold out. Come on Chicago-man, bitterly cold winter last year, never had any heat wave last summer. And you're lucky you live closer to Lake Michigan, out here in the suburbs our high yesterday was a whopping 5 degrees (for your "friends" that would be -15 C).

How does that data fit into the apocalyptic predictions of global warming profiteers?

 

[DanDaManJC]

All I have to do is point outside where it is fucking cold out. Come on Chicago-man, bitterly cold winter last year, never had any heat wave last summer. And you're lucky you live closer to Lake Michigan, out here in the suburbs our high yesterday was a whopping 5 degrees (for your "friends" that would be -15 C).

How does that data fit into the apocalyptic predictions of global warming profiteers?

Because the super dumbed down version of the theory states that the global average temperature will increase.

Repeat:

global average

In any other average you can have extremes on either side --- say the average height in the USA is say 5'11" but you can have people from 4'5" to 6'10". But the average height is still 5'11". This is simple arithmetic. Middle school stuff. Similarly, you can have extreme hi and low temperatures in different regions of the earth... but all the theory cares about is the global average. This isn't a cop out answer either, it's just your misinterpretation of the theory.

The reason all us libruls get our panties in a twist about your bickering is that you don't even have your facts about global warming straight -- I'm not saying whether or not global warming, by man, is right or wrong, but just the straight up facts about what the theory is actually stating.

 

[Babbles]

The reason all us libruls get our panties in a twist about your bickering is that you don't even have your facts about global warming straight -- I'm not saying whether or not global warming, by man, is right or wrong, but just the straight up facts about what the theory is actually stating.

I don't want to make this issue too political, but I think you are being crazy over presumptive about what the facts are. The news about this climate fiasco goes to exemplify that the data surrounding global climate change are not quite clear.

I suppose my fundamental point is, do not accuse the "other side" of not having their facts straight when in fact the data is not entirely conclusive. Frankly that makes you nothing but a mindless drone of a political hack, which I suppose ironically enough is what you are attempting to accuse somebody else of.

That is really what is disconcerting about this scandal. Both "sides" of the aisle should be stupefied that this happened. Those that fully and totally support the notion of mankind's significant impact on global warming should be highly concerned about the fact that illegitimate data can be contaminating the legit data. Then obviously the "other side" can rest easy in the notion that there is indeed illegitimate data and going-ons.

 

[monovillage]

Another recent article about Climategate by Dr. Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html

 

[Jaskalas]

The revelation of Climate­gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth's temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

No need to destroy our economy and force millions into poverty for the sake of a political agenda.

 

[DanDaManJC]

I don't want to make this issue too political, but I think you are being crazy over presumptive about what the facts are. The news about this climate fiasco goes to exemplify that the data surrounding global climate change are not quite clear.

I suppose my fundamental point is, do not accuse the "other side" of not having their facts straight when in fact the data is not entirely conclusive. Frankly that makes you nothing but a mindless drone of a political hack, which I suppose ironically enough is what you are attempting to accuse somebody else of.

That is really what is disconcerting about this scandal. Both "sides" of the aisle should be stupefied that this happened. Those that fully and totally support the notion of mankind's significant impact on global warming should be highly concerned about the fact that illegitimate data can be contaminating the legit data. Then obviously the "other side" can rest easy in the notion that there is indeed illegitimate data and going-ons.

I wasn't making any statement about the actual data or the validity of the theory, just getting the facts about the theory straight. Whether or not the theory was correct is up for debate and is a current study... what I was saying was that he was attacking this theory on a completely false premise. It doesn't matter if the theory ends up being proven wrong -- that still doesn't change the fact that the theory is basically making a claim about the global average temperature. His assertion that Chicago having record low temperatures is logically irrelevant to debunking the global warming theory. Just to qualify my statement a bit... I'm not saying that you absolutely couldn't use the record low temperatures in Chicago and throughout the rest of the USA as a legitimate counter-hypothesis... but obviously we didn't have any such presentation of evidence + an argument that connects the dots.

So the facts I was accusing him of misunderstanding aren't the measured data and so forth, but rather "just" the proposed theory for the supposed temperature variation in the world. It's a logic thing and also off the topic of the discussion about the apparent data forgery.

Where I'll go out on a limb is that if someone can't make a rational argument -- or at least see in his head the logical problems with his statement, then he won't understand the scientific method either. I say this because science is all about listing premises... making a guess (hypothesis or theory) and then finding and presenting evidence for your argument. All qualities of a good argument too. In a perfect world science would be all about simply looking at the data and drawing conclusions from that unbiased data. My worry is that people will see this climategate scandal and its unethical data forgery, and decide to completely dismiss any science they don't find comfortable, whether that's evolution or the big bang, based solely on unscientific reasons. It's not about me trying to convince everyone that we live in some atheistic world or other tripe like that, but rather me convincing you to have the common courtesy to know what you're talking about.