| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
True, Gary | ||
| Aesquire |
It's nearly impossible to destroy a religion. These guys lied for over 10 years, made a lot of money. Why change a winning combo now? Rocket, they repeatedly refused to give info to "deniers" ( a term deliberately meant to invoke neo-nazi's & Iranian leaders ) even with legit interest, legal FOI requests, etc. Con men, dude. Scam.Hoax.Billions of Pounds. | ||
| Rocketman |
The way I understood it was no relevant information from 160 bites was it, discussed global warming. Just that some number fudging was going on. Why didn't the hackers grab the emails that they claim were being talked about in the emails they did grab? Seems a bit like a smoking gun but no body. But in any case. The FOI act is open to much censorship. Absolutely more so if it's a government body or similar, or police force etc, which you are requesting info from. They have a built in clause which permits them to withhold that which they feel is not in the requesters (public?) interest. In the case of global warming and climate change I'd imagine much would not be up for grabs. But as I said, why did the hackers not grab something revealing. Surely not everything has been deleted, but for all their efforts they just fell lucky maybe and found the smoking gun, but that's all. So what's the point? Rocket | ||
| Sifo |
The way I understood it was no relevant information from 160 bites was it, discussed global warming. Just that some number fudging was going on. Why didn't the hackers grab the emails that they claim were being talked about in the emails they did grab? Seems a bit like a smoking gun but no body. But in any case. The FOI act is open to much censorship. Absolutely more so if it's a government body or similar, or police force etc, which you are requesting info from. They have a built in clause which permits them to withhold that which they feel is not in the requesters (public?) interest. In the case of global warming and climate change I'd imagine much would not be up for grabs. But as I said, why did the hackers not grab something revealing. Surely not everything has been deleted, but for all their efforts they just fell lucky maybe and found the smoking gun, but that's all. So what's the point? Rocket Rocket, I don't mean any disrespect to you but you are displaying my worst fear on this, that the general public just won't understand what has been released. This is a smoking gun that proves collusion among scientists (paid by the government) to disregard the data in front of them and publicly claim the data says something else. This has been known about, but without absolute proof for almost a decade now. Now unless someone can prove these documents to be forged, are altered (very easy to prove BTW) then the proof is in that the top scientists who are promoting AGW are falsifying data. Here it is as short as I can make it. Michale Mann (The Mann trick in the emails) did a study looking at tree rings as a proxy for temperature. He grafted the instrument data to the end of his proxy data and created the "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC used in the TAR assessment. Despite peer review in Nature nobody every checked the validity of this study until Steve McIntyre looked at it. McIntyre could not get cooperation from Mann so he had to reverse engineer the entire study. This was one of the issues that was uncovered after literally years of work by McIntyre trying to figure out what Mann did and this issue became known as the divergence problem. The study was shown to be terribly flawed. This prompted a number of other similar "independent" temperature studies (Phil Jones was one of them) that attempted to back up the Mann study. These were used by the IPCC in the AR4 report in the form of a spaghetti graph that shows the hockey stick. Again McIntyre is attempting to look at these new studies and is being stonewalled. The divergence problem is basically that the proxies used (and they have already been heavily filtered to get rid of data that doesn't show a hockey stick stopped showing a rise in temperature around 1960. Mann's trick as shown in these emails, and computer code that was released was to truncate the actual data and replace it with data that was "adjusted to reflect actual temperatures". The emails not only prove that Mann used faked data, but that Jones did too. Even worse it shows that they worked together using the same fraudulent "trick" to fake the data in an "independent" study to confirm the original. The emails also prove that they colluded to cover this up by ignoring FOI requests and discussed destroying evidence if they were to be forced to release the information being requested by the FOI request. The whole lot of independent studies used by the IPCC are all from associates of Mann and Jones. Given that none of them will be open with their data and methods any rational person would certainly be suspect of their studies also. The whole point of the divergence problem is that if the divergence from 1960 to present can't be explained away it calls into question if tree rings can even be used as a temperature proxy. Of course if it could be explained away there would be no reason to falsify the data. Just a bit of background on why the Mann study was so important. Mann completely redefined what we "knew" about temperature during the past 2000 years. Suddenly with a single study we knew that the Medieval Warm Period wasn't as warm as we thought, and the Little Ice Age was warmer that we thought. It's really amazing that this was so readily accepted without being able to see the details of the study so that we could see if it holds up to scrutiny. Your point on FOI being censored in many government agencies doesn't hold water in this case. There is nothing here that could be considered a security concern or any national secret. In fact the emails prove that this information was being openly shared among friends across the pond. If you care to make that case then you are making the case for things much more serious than scientific fraud. | ||
| Buellinachinashop |
I'm shocked at Hex's restraint. | ||
| Doughnut |
Chuck Norris does not use spell check. His spelling checks itself. | ||
| Leatherneck |
I'm shocked at Hex's restraint. A sign of composure and wisdom. | ||
| Sifo |
A sign of composure and wisdom. Wisdom to know when the jig is up! | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
A sign that nothing can be said to refute the FACTS. | ||
| Sifo |
| ||
| Sifo |
One thing that I don't understand is that if your real concern is the environment, this should be thrilling news to you. This is proof that the science behind showing greenhouse gases causing damage to our climate have been a fraud. This means that the greenhouse gases really are not the huge problem that we were told they were. That means that the Earth is actually not being killed. Why are some so unwilling to be happy about that? | ||
| Drkside79 |
Because I'm not sure i believe this either. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
LOL....when presented with FACTS stick your head in the sand and refuse to see. | ||
| Sifo |
Because I'm not sure i believe this either. What part don't you believe. This has been a point of contention for a decade now, just lacking the proof. It real the proof is in. I just saw Kevin Trenberth from the IPCC admitting that it all looks real. He is spinning the crime aspect of the hack of course. The reality is that the information that was released is pretty targeted around certain issues. Clearly not just a dump of information hacked from a computer server. This looks more like an inside leak of information. When exposing fraud that is called a whistle blower. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?} | ||
| Drkside79 |
Listen Ferris I don't know whether this is true or not. However I do know that every time there is a Dem. in office all the Republican good ole boys come out of the wood work with lies exaggerations and everything else. Also last time I checked the news is not always honest either. | ||
| Drkside79 |
If its true I am a very happy person about it. That being said reducing emissions is a good thing and i would like to see it continue. | ||
| Sifo |
What's not to be true? The leak has been acknowledged. The validity of what has been leaked is not being challenged. The information proves a point of contention that has existed for a decade now. It's time to open your eyes. Sorry. It's starting to look like "Baghdad Bob" claiming there's no sign of the military coming into Baghdad with columns of black smoke in the background. | ||
| Rocketman |
I think the point is, if it is all smoke and mirrors then it can only be good if the planet really is suffering. I think common sense tells us we need to be taking care, but would you rather have a bunch of scientists fudging the results toward a safer planet or a bunch of scientists attempting to prove global warming isn't a problem, or worse still, doesn't exist. But then we find out later they were wrong and we wished we'd have gone with the fudged results? I'm outta my depth here. Don't have time to get my head into it that makes a difference to the planet, so I tend to err on the side of caution until FACTS really are presented. Rocket | ||
| Sifo |
That being said reducing emissions is a good thing and i would like to see it continue. Then it's time to stop the AGW Pelosi that focuses on CO2 and focus on harmful emissions. Hopefully this will be the start of that. I just fear that the believers will keep their heads firmly stuck in the sand and never understand what this is really about.} | ||
| Sifo |
And Rocketman just proved my point. He is actually saying we should go with the fraudulent science just in case the fraudulent science somehow proves itself to be true. I want scientists to be real scientists, especially when they are doing it on my dime! When they commit fraud and that fraud is used to promote huge and useless Cap & Trade tax that will have very detrimental effects on the US, but zero benefit for the environment, then I have a big problem with that. | ||
| Doughnut |
It pees when I burn. | ||
| Alchemy |
Predicting climate change is an imperfect science at this point .... on either side. Fraud should be rooted out and severely punished! At least we are able to dig out some fraud these days rather than let it stand for decades and skew our understanding of the world. This is clearly interesting and in a couple of years we will have a better understanding after more peer review. My watchpoint is the arctic ocean. If the ice cap melts in the next 10 or 20 years then that might be troubling. Same with the ice sheets on Antarctica where any major changes probably means we should strongly consider some form of substantial and aggressive action. Retrospective data analysis of tree rings or trapped atmospheric samples or core sample analysis is far from conclusive at this point. But we may learn to make it more compelling. If the ice starts melting or the deep ocean currents start to change then it has my attention in a more immediate way. However, I am a conservative and it seems obvious that we are polluting the pants off our environment so my intermediate view is that we act to control what we suspect might cause climate change for the next 40 or 50 years until we have more conclusive information. Doing nothing is foolhardy as I see it. Doing something will likely clean up the environment even if it has no substantial effect on climate. | ||
| Sifo |
Predicting climate change is an imperfect science at this point .... on either side. One side makes that it's main point. It's far from perfect science. The other side claims the science is settled, and is now caught in a decade long, international, government funded fraud right at the heart of the issue. For all the complaining about big oil funding the "skeptics", I'm not aware of any outright fraud that has ever been exposed. Certainly not on this scale! Who you going to believe? Doing something will likely clean up the environment even if it has no substantial effect on climate. Actually with the focus on CO2 we are not focusing on things that really can be addressed for much less money. Somehow having the government force me to choose between bringing mercury into my home or sitting in the dark doesn't seem like being responsible with the environment. How much mercury will wind up in landfills waiting to leach into the water tables because people are too lazy to dispose of the properly? | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Sifo, you hit it on the head. Most have no clue what the issue of global warming is beyond the obvious. I'm glad someone, like yourself, has the patience to explain it because I sure don't. I'm fed up with it all. | ||
| Hex |
I promised Blake that I would be good. I intend to keep that promise. I rejoined BadWeB to see if I could help in rallying the troops to write letters with their spare time, rather than arguing politics, religion, and science. I haven't had the time to mull through this thread yet. There is some good stuff here on all sides. I'd just like to see a coordinated effort to support Buell, Erik Buell Racing, and even help out Harley-Davidson through their bad decision making. I like Ferris and the rest of the Right here, at least he doesn't call me names like others not present have. Carry on saving the World, it's a good exercise. I'm on a much smaller quest. Hex | ||
| Sifo |
I'm literally in tears reading the comments from the computer code that has been released. It's been compiled into a nice montage. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate- hide-the-decline-codified/#more-13197 Cleaned up for the kiddies...
| ||
| Fast1075 |
Not directly associated with "Climate Change", but here in Central Florida we have a problem with high mercury levels in our now increasingly polluted freshwater lakes...between the pollution and the long running drought, over fishing, encroachment of exotic species and utterly shameful resource "managment"...it's enough to make you puke...the once mighty Okeechobbee is nothing more than a huge cesspool. | ||
| Chellem |
Even if the polar ice caps ARE melting, if man-made global warming is proven to be false, and we're actually NOT causing them to melt, then how can we believe that we can stop it somehow? I agree it's a problem, but sticking with science that is lying isn't going to fix the problem, because it makes people focus on a pretend cause to a REAL problem. I guess what I mean is, if global warming ISN'T happening, but the ice caps continue to melt, then, we need to refocus on trying to figure out what is REALLY causing it, rather than blindly following what we THINK is causing it, now that we aren't as sure anymore. And I'd love to focus on more immediate environmental problems, such as pollution, pesticide use, GMO seeds and veggies launched with very little testing, garbage piling up around us, mercury in fish, and on and on and on. Once we decide we're not causing global warming, perhaps my fellow "environmentalists" could focus on things that may be killing us and our children NOW, and not decades from now? My $.02. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
LOL.... Hex, believe it or not, one of my best friends is a far left-wing liberal. We both have learned not to argue politics with one another. I hold no animosity towards anyone for their views no matter how vehemently I may disagree. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, you hit it on the head. Most have no clue what the issue of global warming is beyond the obvious. I'm glad someone, like yourself, has the patience to explain it because I sure don't. I'm fed up with it all. What should be obvious is that right before we had Climategate we had the admission from AGW scientists that they couldn't explain the lack of warming in the past decade. Climategate seems to be able to explain why they can't explain the lack of warming. Did I explain that right? I've been watching this from the beginning. At first I had real concern, then realized it was a retread of the 1970's global cooling Pelosi. It has lots of the same crew too. I was brought up to be a conservationist. I won't use falsified science as a means to and end though. I was also brought up to be ethical.} |
