- Tuesday, 9 February 2010
- INQ Mobile
- RSS
Life is a long preparation for something that never happens - WB Yeats
Emails expose the global warming conspiracy
NEWS THAT more than 1,000 emails and hundreds of other documents created by scientists at the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) were leaked onto the Internet, allegedly after one of the organisation's email servers was hacked, sent the world into a spin last week.
CRU spinners and tree huggers shrugged their shoulders and claimed that some of the documents, which date back as far as 1996 and as recently as a couple of weeks ago, could have been tampered with, trying to suggest that the emails and other files had been carefully selected and perhaps even edited.
The fact that the vast majority of the emails, many of which were sent by leading climatologist Phil Jones, are dull almost beyond comprehension suggests otherwise. Surely if the hack attack or leak was a concerted effort by climate change nay-sayers to discredit the whole concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW - the theory that the Earth is rapidly warming and it's all our fault) then they would have spent more time cherry picking the several emails that have really set tongues to wagging.
As it is, sorting through the 176MB of data to find damning items of evidence has been left to newspaper journalists, or more likely an army of minimum wage junior research monkeys. However, all of that hard work has unearthed a number of worrying gaffes by several of the climate research boffins involved.
One document refers to a paper presented to science magazine Nature which plotted temperature changes using data collected from tree rings. The author states, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." An innocent bit of book cooking to make the numbers look neater, or a leftist conspiracy designed to make the government confiscate our cars? It could be either, depending upon whom one believes.
Defenders of the AGW faith at Real Climate have maintained that it was all above-board and just a case of unfortunate terminology. "Scientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a good way to deal with a problem, rather than something that is secret," one poster has insisted without an apparent hint of irony.
Other emails that are causing concern suggest that some of the world's leading climate scientists were harbouring personal doubts about whether the planet is really heating up. "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," one correspondence reads. It continues, "Data shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Another suggests that the organisation has suppressed evidence by asking a number of individuals to delete inconvenient emails, and yet another offers a novel approach to convincing respected scientists with opposing views to come around to the CRU's way of thinking. It says, "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."
And it's not just the threat of physical attacks that becomes apparent when scouring the mass of emails. Verbal insults are also commonplace: "After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing [redacted]'s follow-up talk on how everybody but him has f****d up in reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want you to be involved in."
Perhaps most concerning are the organisation's apparent attempts to pervert the peer review process by excluding anyone with an opposing opinion, regardless of their credibility or authority. One such is an email that says, "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
Of course it is possible that the hacker - or disgruntled insider as some have suggested - was smart enough to bury a couple of smoking guns within the massive pile of innocent witterings. It doesn't take a criminal genius to fake a few convincing looking email headers, if armed, as they apparently were, with hundreds of genuine ones. Nobody at the UEA has come forward to confirm or deny the authenticity of the data, which is totally unsurprising. If the emails do turn out to be genuine, the very least the red-faced writers can expect is to be subjected to a series of increasingly embarrassing inquisitions at the hands of the world's press, the government institutions that fund their research activities and the British taxpayers who ultimately pick up the tab.
At worst, they should be sacked or even prosecuted for misleading the world about what most concerned people see as the single most important international issue facing the planet today. Having said that, we really wouldn't want to be the person responsible for Internet security at the UEA.
In most industries a bit of light jiggery-pokery of the figures is commonplace. A favourable audit here, a wayward stock market valuation there, some creative accounting just about everywhere. But we're not talking about crooked MPs fiddling their expenses to pay for their castles to be renovated here. When the folks at the CRU speak, the world listens. It's true that more than 50 per cent of the world then sticks its fingers in its ears and goes "la la laaa laaa", but many trillions of dollars worth of finance, commerce and industry teeters on the issue of the whole global warming and climate change science construction.
These people are rewarded well from the public purse to supply the population and the politicians who serve us with accurate data and well-founded scientific explanations. Their conclusions will necessarily inform momentous decisions that will have immense consequences for billions of people throughout the entire world for decades to come, and will impact the quality of life - or even matters of life or death - of millions. Therefore, there should be no hidden agendas, no manipulation of numbers and no pandering to political lobbyists, global warming scam artists or fat cat industrialists keen to maintain the status quo.
The CRU has been accused of cherry-picking and withholding its raw data before, but accusations from individuals or organisations with opposing opinions without solid evidence have been quickly dismissed.
The bottom line is that these are all smart people. It's true that, when we write emails at work most of us behave as though we were operating in an impenetrable bubble. We have firewalls and security experts and virus-killing software and systems administrators to protect us and our badly spelled ramblings from the public gaze. We insult colleagues with apparent impunity, commit our casual banter and deepest secrets to the digital domain, and bandy about commercially sensitive information safe in the knowledge that our emails are private and will never fall into the hands of anyone other than the intended recipient.
But the real world isn't like that. If you work in an industry where what you say and do potentially affects the lives of every living being on the planet, you should be very, very careful about what you say and do.
Be assured that this story will run and run. If the emails do turn out to be genuine, which is so far nigh on impossible to definitively prove either way, the CRU has some very searching questions to answer.
With the Copenhagen Treaty looming on the horizon, and the credibility of one of the world's leading climate think tanks in tatters, this lapse in mail server security, or whistleblower's leak, could turn out to be this generation's Watergate.
Climategate, anyone? µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
Truly a load of cobblers. This article, not AGW that is.
They refuse freedom of information request. Mann in Pensylvania (?) has already stated that they are his e-mails. Interesting to see what the research will show.
I think this is a great article. Hopefully appropriate data has been used for appropriate reasons. With emails, it is usually difficult to find meaning behind the content due to jokes, slang, banter, inside jokes, and other styles of communication that can be misrepresented very easily.
Wow I read this article and really was not convinced that anyone found anything damning. I want to punch people in the face sometimes too when they distort facts - and might even express this in a email to a peer. (boy it can be frustrating listening to perverted hyperbola that people might absorb as "fact" and "evidence") Do you know what is a great example of atrick? Taking a derivative using a established law of mathematics. This is almost like magic, and yet empirical evidence tells us that this trick is meaningful. I am not sure i understand the motivation behind your resistance to both the fact that scientists are humans that use jargon and have emotions and the fact that the scientific evidence, to be considered evidence, uses many independent sources, of the magnitude that would make it impossible to contrive a conspiracy like the one being proposed.
There is not much China does not know about since they have so many well skilled hackers. Do you think that with the attempt to lecture them, they released the emails on the Russian site?
I think it is pretty clear that the emails are genuine also.
@bc - What if people uncovered emails from climate scientists, where they admitted that the whole thing was a scam so they could get funding for super somputers and satellite launches (which ought to do more environmental harm than good), so they could sit around in their over-air conditioned offices and make up bogus info, and get paid a lofty salary.
There is nothing anyone can say or do to dissuade you, because your belief is not a logical one.
How many of those climate scientists don't even turn off their computer over the holiday weekend?
Amazing!
The data (emails) are right in your face and you still refuse to see the evidence.
These same scientists threatened my job as a scientist with the US Geological Survey because I attempted to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were completely natural caused solely by Earth's physical processes.
Additionally, these same scientists would not even discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally attacked me and my family.
I always knew that when man-made global climate change was showed to be insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word "FAITH", in science. But this event and exposure is way worse for the science community as a whole. Remember: "Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)".
Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site.
But no outcry and defense for those scientists?
IF you can't see any problem with this and you don't wonder if there's been some misleading of the public by these scientists, then you definitely are not scientists, you're in denial and would buy any bill of goods sold, and you have no moral principles to stand on.
On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I attempted to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website obviously refused to post my comments because they know me, which is another attempt to silence objective parties on this subject and since they were the ones that threatened my job.....
Now, think about this. Al Gore PUBLICLY states that the Earth’s Mantle temperatures are MILLION of DEGREES. The man doesn't even have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they screwed the pooch. They can't, because if they do, the gig is up.......
Matter of fact, LET ME LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL DATA! If there's a problem with the data, I'll find it.......
Initially I was rather frustrated at this article- but it's mainly because I'm a bleiever in global warming. And, by the way, that's what it boils down to for most people, people who don't have an innate understanding of the data collected nor the process behind it- we believe the 'facts' of one side, or the other. I also like to think of scientists as pressing ahead, theories be damned, and collecting the actual hard facts, whether they are popular, favoured, or not. I wonder what hacked emails from the opposition read like...
When you get your paper "peer-reviewed" by your friends, you are a cheat. When you want to stop publishing papers in a journal because it wants to present more than one side, you are a cheat. When you want to beat people up because they have a different opinion than you, you are a high school boy that is a cheat. Most people when they are right are excited by outside challenges because they can prove their theory. And the more digging they do the more it proves your theory. When you want to beat someone up its because you are a fraud and are afraid of being found out.
"We insult colleagues with apparent impunity, commit our casual banter and deepest secrets to the digital domain, and bandy about commercially sensitive information safe in the knowledge that our emails are private and will never fall into the hands of anyone other than the intended recipient."
LOL speak for yourself. A professor I once knew once sent a snidey email about a colleague behind his back. Unfortunately for this supposed sharp cookie, into the reply email was CC'd the said colleague. Result: pompous prof still scraping yolk off his egg-encrusted face.
At the end of the day these people are not nearly as clever as they are made out to be. I know, I used to work in academia.
They are just banal reincarnations of the assholes that shaped the past. Read up on what Galileo had to endure from the Inquisition to see exactly what I mean.
AGW debate, true or not, is a diversion obscuring the pressing economic need to switch to renewables ASAP due to peak oil.
Failure to do so will lead to economic apocalypse and world wide warfare over dwindling energy resources. Subprimes and Iraq were just a harbinger of the doom that awaits us if we fail.
Can we please just f****** do it.
The AGW scam was exposed long before the e-mails were released. Face it, how else could you explain the fact that reality never matched what the computer models predicted. The e-mails just confirm what was common knowledge and I'll bet when the code is looked at closely the conclusion will be the same. AGW is a scam.
We need to start looking under all the rocks. I'll bet the claim that the ice caps are melting is fake to. What about "peak oil", probably another lie. Think about it. Just how many of the claims we keep hearing could be fake? This is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
It is a fact that global glaciation is retreating. It is a fact that the antarctic ice shelves are dwindling. It is a fact that global sea levels are rising.
It's also a fact that Mount Pinatubo's eruption caused the largest change in global climate in modern history.
The question is not what the cause is but what we can do to prevent it or reduce its effects.
I also agree wholeheartedly with JFDI. Natural fossil reserves are running out (excepting the large, very hard to tap stores across the globe)and this will result in global instability as nations vie for control over these vital assets.
Too much power in the oil barons hands, we need to change our power provision culture and switch to renewables and nuclear.
And where the fuck is our messiah of fusion?
Please list reference material used to DM justify your quote.
"It is a fact that global glaciation is retreating. It is a fact that the antarctic ice shelves are dwindling. It is a fact that global sea levels are rising."
One rule though, you may not use data from CRU scientist. LOL
Also Please explain harsh peer review in:
IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report. Pay particular attention to very first critque.
Most intelligent people would read some of these files before commenting, but you may want to read them now.
I will send them to you if need be.
You can try to justify that these are just e-mails. But what about the manipulated computer modeling codes, how about the internal memos and reviews like the former mentioned.
Eagerly await your reply
Nothing presented in this article suggests anyone "hiding infos" about climate research.
It's well known to anyone who cares to read the non-politicized research on climate change that a) our climate models are inaccurate and b) there is no irrefutable evidence that "global warming" exists as a man-made phenomenon, there's no evidence it exists at all. Only theories and models that predict it.
If there was real scientific evidence to support man-made climate change, it wouldn't be a topic of such heated debate in scientific circles -- if for no other reason than it wouldn't be an interesting topic to debate about.
The point being that extremist views on both sides of the issue are fueled primarily by political interests, not science.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to stop releasing high amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- but not because we're causing global warming; because non-interference is the best policy when it comes to a system we don't understand (e.g. the planet's climate and how it continues to support human life).
How could so many people have believed these nut jobs? All they are is a bunch of left wing anti-capitalists, trying to create an excuse for yet more taxes.
way beyond just this little scandal. Adolf Hitler warned us about it, but we demonized him and tragically fought against him rather than with him.
I find it truly amazing that someone actually thinks that over 96% of the world's climatologists (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf) have some kind of conspiracy to alter research data for their own benefit, apparently to get research grants. This of course is far more believable option than that the AGW deniers, namely Big Oil, has less to gain by opposing these views? Scientists apparently are all just stupid, since they do not realize they might get caught.
Here's some reading to start off, remember to verify the sources:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
.... the emails is the comments in their application to generate their prediction graphs.
Don't forget, it was global COOLING in the 70's.
..
Would it really surprise anyone if this Global Warming turned out to be a farce? This thing climaxed for me when judges started to rule (after Katrina) that several cases pending against BIG OIL COMPANIES were being allowed to be heard because the presenters showed reasonable connection between Global Warming and increases in Hurricanes and related weather phenomenon.
That's just beautiful. Well, can we make this retroactive to lets the 50's when I saw the roof blown off my neighbors house during a Hurricane in Virginia.
Has the world gone mad?
These scientists have been shown to be wrong OVER and OVER again. Data collected shows that Carbon Monoxide increases occurred AFTER the temperature rises. Scientists should recognize the simple CAUSE and EFFECT relationship. Did somehow the CO2 level look ahead and say ..."Oh the tempoerature is GOING to ride over the next 50 years, so I need to increase my levels so that I can make Al GORE happy ?" How ridiculous is that.
How stupid are we to let governments and committees full of self-serving money mongers make decisions on where our money is spent without proper consideration of the facts !
AGW = SCAM period !
Hey bystander your joking right, real climate shut down comments because evidently the AGW crowd cant take the heat.... lol. And come on now, wikipedia, now I know your joking. Good one though im still lmao. But just in case youre not kidding this is the data realclimate and those others you directed me to get their data from. The sooner you start taking responsibility for your own independent, critical thinking the better off you will be.
Its in black and white try reading it for yourself.
There are plenty of places to get them on ScienceBlogs. Including people who actually participated in the original emails.
How exactly is grabbing stolen emails, speculating ignorantly of what they mean, and then claiming is GW is a hoax, "independent, critical thinking"?
MarkusR you should really read the files yourself they are not all emails. Many people here are currently sifting thru them. heres an example:
"This chapter exemplifies the issues that the authors must face - there is complexity in the cliamate system that cannot be solely explained by the prevailing humanocentric theory. The inconsistenices deriving from this complexity are the basis of the comments. There is a lot of work to be done."
[Lee Gerhard (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 83-7)]
That is the very first critique on a 176 page internal review document. No not an email, not out of context. Not by some GOP plant. Pretty strange that there is this kind of dissent in their own shop considered all the scientist supposedly agree on AGW. The only down side to you reading them yourself is that you will soon realize how ignorant you appear to any one who actually has started to research these files themselves.
Do you realize at one time the concensus of the greatest minds on the planet thought the earth was flat.
Except for that one crazy (GOP plant) that knew it was round. What was his name again Mark.
Also, please direct me to where it is documented this is a Hack and just not one Honest scientist. I know it a lot to ask, but hell your the only "smart one" here. You may be comfortable with opening your mouth( or keyboard) before engaing your brain, but I am not. I look forward to your documentation.
These are scientists exhibiting criminal behaviour. COnsidering the amount of money that is revolving around AGW with regard to taxation, grants, etc these people should face criminal prosecution.
It's quite possible peak oil is here or very soon to be...
to my mind this is indicated by certain Shell ads where they are boasting about how the use the principle of a bendy straw to scoop around inside reserves... that if anything says it all really... I can just about hear the oil wells slurping the last few drops!!
What is the issue there? There is nothing in that comment that disagrees with AGW.
This article is a load of rubbish - and rather old stinky rubbish at that. Either I hit a time warp or I read about this scandal (and all the perfectly reasonable clarifications to just about every bit of "damning evidence" presented here) a week ago or more. Some of the other nuggets (like Russo's above) don't mean jack-shit. Everyone agrees that there are many factors at work on the climate, and everyone agrees that it is a terribly complex issue. That is the opposite of dissent! Jeebus frickin christ on a skateboard!
And still the political groups are going to Copenhagen, to make every one return to the 1900 levels of carbon emissions the truth is out there but they have ignored these truths and are planning to go ahead with the reduction of carbon emissions by up to 80% with notable exceptions being excluded from the required reductions. Something very wrong is going on here, and it amounts to treasonable behavior on many of those involved.
Rules for Mass Mind Control Used by the CRU Found in the Hacked Files!
Some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.”
Under the header of the third ‘Rule’, “linking policy and communication” it is stated that “everyone must use a clear and consistent explanation of climate change” and “government policy and communications on climate change must be consistent.” Indeed. If the lie is to be sold effectively, they must all communicate the same lie. How to best sell it?
-“Create a trusted, credible, recognized voice on climate change.”
-“Use emotions and visuals: another classic marketing tool: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do.”
It seems that people have been listening. The advertisement of global warming is thick with apocalyptic visuals, ranging from polar bears crashing to their doom and a large family of hurricanes plaguing the continental United States.
Last but not least, the old Edward Bernays-trick is being proposed, the power of repetition:
“The communications must be sustained over time: all the most successful public awareness campaigns have been sustained consistently over many years.”
Indeed they have. The good news is that with the unveiling of the recent e-mails and documents the lies are being exposed in such a quick pace, the propaganda will be hard pressed to keep up. For the full eye opening story go to: http://www.infowars.com/unearthed-files-include-rules-for-mass-mind-control-campaign/
For further knowledge and understanding of the bottom line watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
Wow I print a direct quote and you still dont read it. That is exactly what he is protesting, the fact that this report is insinuating that it is humanocentric in nature. And I dont remember hereing a lot of you guys saying "everyone agrees that it is a terribly complex issue." in fact the very scientists and I use the word loosely, still claim there is a concensus among their peers that it is man made.
So you want me to post where one of their peers tells them that trees are not thermometers.
How about the one where one admonishes the other for throwing out actual tree data that didnt meet his pre conceived notion.
you guys really should start looking at the actual data, because you are fighting unarmed. You could very easily combat my posts from same material I have if we are actually debating AGW. But that is not what this is about it is about suppressing information, squashing dissent, and manipulating data to reinforce your opinion. Its all there to read for yourself, but ignorance is bliss.
Just wait til some computer geeks start looking into their modeling codes.
So get ready boys its gonna be a long one.
Offer still stands, more than willing to send copies if for some reason you cant find them.
Geezz...Take this as bottom line: it is not your damn business to open the mouth on global warming problem.
Damn retards are not capable of discussing climate physical and numerical models. Make your own simulations and argue with those who have done ones, the Livermore National Lab team, for example.
Hey, can you all troll here also about nuclear fusion computer modeling ?
So, just shut the hell up all, including so called "scientists". Even if you know for sure the current data is complete falsification you prove nothing without advanced modeling of anthropogenic factors and their impact on future.
Unicellulars...
The MHM and several commenting in this forum, have all started bantying their false figures and pointed accusations.
That is because they can not discuss with real facts or, like the dogs and pigs in Animal Farm, use yelling and screaming, since they can not use real facts, as they have none.
Some fool bantied 96% of the climatologists... There is NO data backing that up, unless you say 100% of the co-conspirators, funded by oil companies (the sponsors of that particular group (it is sponsored by big oil...)) and the UN, which is salivating now that they have a chance to take the entire world to tyranny.
There are many things I do, and don't believe. I don't believe that the BBC, which had this data for three weeks prior to it being released through another outlet, did not call the NWO conference leaders running the Copenhagen conference, and spilled their guts, rather than do due diligent reporting after gathering facts (something MHM no longer does.) Why do you think the conference was almost cancelled, and Obama got cold feer?
Throw your charges, but have some facts to back them up. The BBC acknowledged when they got the info, and did nothing they will admit to. Either by deliberate statement of slips of the tongue, the not scientists weather fabricators admitted the validity of the documents, and cried they was misinterpreted by people that don't understand.
Credible (real scientists) have seen the documents, stated the validity, and read what was written with a science mind. They call this the worst event of its type. An Atom Bomb corruption of science. This is not some pin head radical left wing terrorist news group speaking.. These were real scientists, ashamed of the goings on in British academia.
Really, well explain the University of Albany Inquiry Committees examining of the allegations against Dr. Wang for "fabrication and misrepresentations of research results" (PDF08214_SUNYA is the file name for any one who actually wants to read it.) I think you will find the committee's findings will be very interesting to you.
I am not entirely famaliar with the University at Albany, but I guess it could be GOP front.
Remember fellas over 60 megs to go thru,
just like Motown the hits keep coming.
Could very well be happening, Just do something about the planets future already.
The Electric & Kinetic Powered Vehicle
http://www.thekpv.com
Non-profit entity working towards a better humanity
Also Unicellulars If we use their standards should be fairly easy for us to do. All we have to do evidently is confidently state the earth is flat,also state there is a concensus on it, change some numbers, throw out others and draw some graphs with the fraudlent research numbers that shows our original thesis is correct. Who said science is hard. LMAO
No surprise, things are about to change in a big way, but not how we voted here in USA. Man has the slippery slope been left in our rear view mirror or what? I can't even see it anymore.
It's just amazing to me how dark things have become. When I was 22, it was 2000, and it seemed like everything was progressing nicely. Now at 31, I am 100 percent certain we are 'on course' for a new dark age. I haven't changed, the world has.
1. 9/11 was MI6/Mossad/CIA - That's a fact. Read around, it's no secret.
2. Derivatives crashed the economy (thanks to Queen(s) of England, and Netherlands)...and if you think we're even 1 percent through the crisis, you're nuts. Derivatives - the 11 letter word you never heard of before last year that will crush the world and YOURS. 1.4 quadrillion of them, all bets, all un-payable.
3. Climate Change is bunk. A fabricated way to depopulate the world, through legitimizing austerity on the premise the world can't take humans living on it.
Specifically raising the price through the Cap and Trade DERIVATIVES scam pricing everything out of reach. - especially after the dollar devalues...and we won't be able to rebuild our industry because it will be FORBIDDEN.
The SUN causes Global Warming or Cooling. Pollution is a factor, but we can always do superfund.
Look around you'll find the download for the emails/source code. Zerohedge has a link to it.
Statistics can be made to make the impossible seem probable, and even 'real' by law. I had the best stats teacher in the nation, and the interpretation of statistics is as wide as poetry.
Statistical models are completely made up, given the variables appear legitimate. Even though they have this much leeway, they have to 'doctor' the results?
Sorry, they've been lying through their butts this whole time. Man doesn't cause 'climate change'. But they sure want to pass laws to cripple industry.
But statistics for climate change is only 1/2 the equation. They use it again which at some point should show up as part of their Motus Operandi to use bunk stats to further their cause. Which also makes me even more certain that both ideas are being used to control the debate and affect the legislative outcomes around the world.
4. Health care bill is T-4 Hitler program. The recent mammograms/pap smear 'suggestions' will be LAW once Obama passes the bill that is merely pretending to be a healthcare bill. (I want REAL single payer...not this Hitler crap!!!!!)- IMAC (modeled after N.I.C.E. which constrains NHS). Read Ezekiel Emmanuel (rahm's brother!), Simon Stevens, Peter Orszag, and the Hastings Center premiere psycho - Daniel Callahan.
If you don't think I'm telling the truth, then it's obvious you haven't read what these people have published papers detailing their 'beliefs'. Don't blame me if you're ignorant. They want LESS technology used on patients. They want entire classes of things to be removed. They think of the hippo-cratic oath as 'an obstacle' to 'good health policy'. Too bad the repubs are as clueless as they are, or they could easily have a homerun on their hands. But because they are such idiots, even when it's fallen into their laps- they STILL screw it up.
Also the bunk statistics they used in climate change fraud? They use statistics again here, to determine whose life is worthy to be lived, and using that as a basis to determine who gets treated, as well as WHAT TREATMENTS are AVAILABLE. Not if it saves someones life, but how much money it costs.
They weren't telling you to not have mammograms because it doesn't work, it's because it costs too much according to them, for you to have it done.
Make no mistake, when they try to dissuade you from 'self checking' your breasts for lumps at the same time telling you not get mammograms....a red flag should go up....this isn't based on science, it's based on $$$$$. (more for bailouts!!!)
Remember, as long as the bailout money stays at top, banks, inflation is 'subdued'. Until it explodes.
Those two examples will be multiplied by 1000 fold in the upcoming year or two to provide savings for the bailout.
5. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan- 'sexed up' dossier, Opium, bleed America dry, and destabilization to rape their (Iraq/Afghan) natural resources brought to you again by the Queen and bought hook, line, and sinker by our national disgrace Bush.
The sad thing is writing this, it seems crazy for all this to have transpired, but it's the truth. God's honest truth. We're more screwed than you know, and it's not crazy conspiracy theories. These are actual people, actual events, actual medical papers, actual quotes, actual strategies, actual laws, and actual attempt at implementation by the powers that be.
Prince Phillip wants the world population reduced, to 2 billion, and since he says human beings themselves cause the greatest damage to the planet, well you can see where this is going. What a psycho. Don't believe me, he's on record as saying it. What do you think they are going to do @ Copenhagen this December? Twiddle thumbs? Nope. Screw the world over, yep.
So I have no doubt that such draconian rules are being put in place behind our backs on like ACTA.
Just like the Lisbon treaty that was just ratified by the Czech's signature. Wow is that treaty the mother of all sovereignty takers. You euros are up a big creek now with that Lisbon treaty. Good luck with that.
Seeing that Bernie Sanders, probably the best senator of the bunch, has reservations about it, is really all that needs to be said. But of course, never take anyone's word on it.
Also (I'm a dem, and voted for Obama for real change...too bad it was change for the worse)...What a fraud. What a joke...and it's on us.
The only question is. Is Obama complicit? Or is he really just as stupid as Bush? It's one of two. Both are a horrible reality, which is.
Please run again Dennis Kucinich in 2012. Because Obama isn't getting my vote and he isn't going to fix the problems, he's IS just making them worse.
There is no conspiracy on these 5 issues, they are reality.
Unicellulars Ill make a deal with you beleivers, fund the research with private dollars( I here Al Gore had a good year) and we will shut the hell up. Deal?
Wow look at that, I been talking to you guys so long im beginning to live in a fantasy world myself. You guys paying your own way, what the hell was I thinking. Talk about a ridiculous.
You would think with 100 million in bank, Big Al would have invented an electric car by now, after all he was just a millonaire when he invented the internet. lol
Had they hired some folks from Intel, there wouldn't be this debate. When the matter became too hot, they would have suggested to stop e-mailing and continue on the phone or on IM....
[/minimode on]
If anyone thinks that a bunch of leaky emails will stop the effort to transform the (western) world into a guillotine-powered Mayan-Gaia worship Altar surely will have got another thing coming.
some big eyed crying polarbears anyone ?
[/minimode off]
quickly.shoved.under.rug
I suggest you take a look at this comment, because it really puts things in context.
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=886
Science is tough, because scientist are a bunch of bastards as any other group of human beings are, and that is the Darwinian filter theories have to get through.
Why are those who disbelieve that global warming is occurring so determined to jump on anything as evidence.
YES there was a decline in temperatures in the 50's and 60's.
NO it is not a secret.
NO it does not destroy the global warming theory.
It is completely explained by the fact that at that time along side the increasing CO2 levels there was also alot of particulate polution. The high levels of particals in the atmosphere reflected the suns energy back out to space causing a cooling effect which masked the warming effect of CO2.
In more recent decades clean air policies have reduced the particlate pollution so we are now seeing the warming effect of the CO2.
"Global Cooling
Don't forget, it was global COOLING in the 70's."
Not true.
In a survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1983 Peterson et al found only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643
"A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then."
The people who did heavy speculation about an ice age, suggesting we should worry? A few popular magazines that saw the studies and dumbed it down for the public, with much exaggeration and drawing their own flawed conclusions.
I'm convinced that we do have an increasing greenhouse effect.
The full impact of it doesn't become visible by just looking at the global temperatures though. Why, you might ask?
Because at the same time as we burn fossils to create all that greenhouse gas we also produce small particles that help forming more clouds. Those clouds reflect some of the sunlight *before* it becomes a factor in heating Earth.
A study performed on weather data from LAX taken in mid september 2001 when all air traffic (a very large contributor to particles in the air) was banned for a couple of days, and compared to data from other days with the same local weather, showed a definite increase in temperature that can't be explained by anything but the lack of passing aircraft. The conclusion of those scientists was that global shading cools the globe by about 0.5C less than the global warming adds heat.
If we stop the particle emissions (that in addition to creating clouds cause lung diseases) the global temperature will quickly increase by a few degrees.
Out of 1000 emails, you find a few insults and a sentence that relies on a single word being taken out of context.
So in other words, there is no evidence at all to support your assertion that there is a conspiracy.
I just hate the way humans always react in terms of just "a human lifespan".
Something changes a bit in a short time and its the end of the world.
No it isnt.
This planet was quite warm tens of thousands of years ago..then the ice age arrived and it got cooler. Then it warmed up again and its still getting a bit warmer. Then it will get cooler again and another ice age comes along....
Rinse and repeat over millions of years.....
Anyway, we homosapiens are not going to be around in a couple of million years.
It's not us that will "inherit the stars" but a future version of us.
Since all the files are stored in a zip file - complete with directories - the In the last few days CRU could have easily compared the ZIP (available from WikiLeaks) with the originals - we can assume that they would be shouting by now if the files had been tampered with.
The most important issue here, is a possible serious statistical error, discussed here:
http://tinyurl.com/yh5bbgr
It seems all these so called scientists only try to model data that support their own theories.
Wouldn't the better scientific method be to falsify your data? State your theory then just to find evidence that would break it. If you can;t then you are probably right???
Wouldn't sun activity, volcanic activity effect the weather, and wouldn't that then effect warming. Then you have sea temperatures (presuming they do not match air temperatures and take a long while to rise and fall???) and levels of plant life on and and in the sea blah blah blah. And this is before C02 levels from us get a mention...
All I ever see it a graph showing temperatures rising and blaming on someone leaving their TV on standby, and inaccurate models and scare stories of polar bears drowning. That's why I find all this hard to believe without specific proof.
Consider - The emails were not a result of a hacker's activity. They were also not going to be produced under a FOIA request.
Rather, they are the residual emails comprising those which had already been *sanitized* from the CRU systems to illegally prepare an incomplete reponse for a future (likely successful) FOIA request.
Note that there is a very small percentage of personal chatter that typically make up close colleague's communication. Therefore, it points to a previous culling.
Theory: These are deleted emails from a sanitized batch which were foolishly or purposely archived and/or discovered by an insider (perhaps the sanitizer himself). The insider then had pangs of conscience or an axe to grind and released them surreptitiously.
Also, data fabrication and algorithm manipulation are not at all the important issues here.
The travesty is that they were peer-reviewing each other's work! They had control of their own process. It was a closed-loop system comprised of several dozen researchers in an incestuous academic relationship.
Well, the Obama administration has an answer for this. On November 25 a small notice was buried on the Federal Contracts register to sole source a State Department contract of up to $50 million to the PR firm Mechanica for "development of positioning and message strategies and implementation of a post-Copenhagen communications strategy. " So your tax dollars are going to be used for propaganda to convince you that global warming is real.
https://www.fbo.gov/notices/f082a46189ce7d2fb46b92460fabff0c
For most of this week I like most minded people have been completely absorbed by the revelations coming from the e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia. Given the lack of reporting from the “trusted” alphabet soup of news organizations, ABC,CBS,CNN,BBC we have ourselves read the e-mails and inspected the notes in the code. My understanding is that the CRU headed by Dr Jones supplied the data in their possession to the United Nations IPCC to support the UN goal of implementing Cap and Trade legislation on the whole world in order to combat a man made contribution to the destruction of the world. A “if we do not act quickly there is no hope scenario” much like the financial bailouts No Time to Think Trust Us This is TOO BIG TO FAIL! Trust is what the e-mails from the CRU speak to and manifest. How can I trust the data used to create the theory that Global Warming was man made and not influenced more by an object 93 million miles away that constitutes 99% of the mass of the solar system and in which we live, in its “atmospheric influence”, recognizing that it only takes 8 min for the warm to reach us. All we ever asked for was Show Us the Math!, well we have seen the math and we have seen collusion, and we have seen stifling of criticism or inspection, and we have seen the trick of adding real temps where your code fails so that anyone else that has records from 1961 on cannot refute your algorithm, and we have seen willful and criminal misuse of US taxpayers money (Roger’s missed trip and all the stuff you did not buy that US hardworking and suffering taxpayers paid for through the NOAA), and we have seen the deliberate destruction of evidence in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. I am more concerned about what we have not seen. I have not seen or heard a peep from Al Gore. I still see the President of the United States prepared to agree to putting a greater burden on the US taxpayer in the now unfounded belief that somehow man was responsible for this last period of warming that certainly ended more than 10YEARS AGO! Hide the decline my great-mother! I as a law abiding tax paying citizen of the United States Demand a Federal Investigation of this matter Climategate!
I think you mean willful intent to lie, alter data, mislead etc. There's also plenty of profit motive for many.
Good luck to those trying to convince the global warming cabal adherents of anything. It's not science people, it's the new religion for people empty in their lives of a real one. They pray at the altar of GAIA & are on a social engineering crusade.
@ Not Convinced:
"Do you know what is a great example of atrick? Taking a derivative using a established law of mathematics. This is almost like magic, and yet empirical evidence tells us that this trick is meaningful."
You must not fundamentally understand what the derivative is. Any derivative you take doesn't come from empirical evidence but as a logical necessity from: the limit as ∆x - 0 of
(f(x)-f(x+∆x))/∆x. If this sounds too technical then you don't have a complete picture of what a mathematical derivative is, but there is absolutely no magic involved and there are several helpful web resources available if you are interested in learning more about it.
The problem with climate models is that their predictions do not follow from logical necessity but from trying to match models that don't fully reflect physical climate, based on lack of full understanding of the physical processes involved in climate and how such processes are related, to empirical data on past climate history. Since we have an incomplete understanding of climate, variable parameters whose values must be fixed are involved to satisfactorily match the data with past/measured behavior. Unfortunately, especially with complex systems, matching past behavior doesn't also mean accurately predicting future behavior. Thus, the models aren't necessarily wrong, just uncertain. These emails seem to add fuel to that fire.
It all depends on integrity and honesty of our scientists and general society. If the scientists deliberately manipulate the data and hence distort the truth, their research is of no value to the general society, but perhaps only of limited value to vested interests who pay for the research. The vested interests may temporarily benefit from the distortion, but will certainly loose in the long term.
If 5% of people in society lie, society can carry it. If say 15% of people lie the information channels are seriously tarnished. If say more than 30% people lie any information becomes extremely unreliable and system colapses.
I have myself have many scientific results with negative consequences and I have always reported them truthfully, so noboby needs to do similar research again. However if I have not done that research, we would not know that it is not the right way to go.
I have witnessed many research projects, with no potential whatsoever to receive massive funding. The originators were either totally corrupt and knowing that it is no go, or absolutely ignorant and incompetent.
Nobody needs that sort of scientists.
So, if we did not have problems with integrity and honesty of the scientists, we would not have problem trusting the data, models etc.
Then there is even less reason to trust what is posted on the internet, by some self-described truth-seeker.
Face the facts: global warming is real because that is what science has told us.
"Anyway, we homosapiens are not going to be around in a couple of million years."
Yeah. So fgck the people already!
The actual hacked climate model source code explained by a software developer:
http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/
This is better than the emails, trust me.
Then there is even less reason to trust what is posted on the internet, by some self-described truth-seeker.
This phenomenon has been studied for nearly 50 years and accepted as highly plausible by the Royal Society (I have the Publication) but the process and connection were unexplainable; the only drawback of all Magnetic Intensity and Ambient Temperature studies in their WORDS up till now. We explained the Process in our paper along with the data analysis. Unfortunately, we used the Hadley Global Temperature Datasets. The data used were yearly averages, which was well explained both in the original paper and the 2008 AGU presentation. Just didn't see any RealClimate people at the presentation. But they knew about it. I informed them
The following is what I perceived as personal intimidation and a threat to call my USGS supervisor for doing this study. The only reason someone uses words like "Does your boss know what your doing" in the context of this event is a threat to get you FIRED if you don't cease and desists. Now if the study and theory were not plausible and a potential explanation of global temperature variability, then why would RealClimate.org do what they did in their posts, not very professional for PhDs. Additionally, there are many other areas on that website where conversations took place.
QUOTE
"264
John Mashey says:
30 June 2007 at 1:04 AM
re: #261: Chuck: you can stop worrying. Tindall has been at USGS for while,............................................
Mr. Moran, if you’re still watching:
I have read USGS 370.735.5 and I hope you (and James Tindall) have.
Do managers SAF and LE HB know about this? Any constructive comments?"
UNQUOTE
From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200...
Those lovely graphs use multiple data sources and incomplete time series. There is no long term reliable database of temperatures or CO2 numbers. The think the tree-ring series is accurate but when it overlaps with instrument temperature data they start removing the tree-ring data. This is because it suddenly becomes unreliable or miss calibrated. If it that bad at the end of the series you cannot reliably use any of it. Surface temperature is affected by local environment changes, near-by construction, addition and removal of measurement stations. They have had problems with erroneous data from measurement stations instead of actual data requiring revision of the combined results. Many climate models of the future have the global warming hypothesis coded in as an assumption and people wonder why we still question the outcome. Why is that if the data doesn’t match the assumption the data is questioned instead of the assumption ?
Local pollution, deforestation and degradation of the environment is an issue. Carbon pollution is not the #1 enemy. There are many more carcinogens and toxic waste that is silently killing people every year.
Well sometimes people do manipulate data so that the world goes in a good direction. That was the case, going green is the best thing we can do to end all the small wars some countries are buying because of oil.
We all know that CO2 doesn't change climate, it may prevent some sun rays to leave atmosphere but it also prevents some from entering the atmosphere.
Climate is changing naturally and it's warmer than 20 years ago but if you look 1000 years ago or even further like 3000 years ago you will see we are getting colder, which is a natural cicle of our planet (ice age, warm, hot, cold, ice age again).
This AGW is a good way to make our research about electricity and magnetism technology go forward.
We think we have the control to manipulate data at all the time. Not we are not going to be around to fry our self, we are going to have what is called natural selection. The same way viruses and bacteria involve with environment by becoming resistant so they can pass their strengths to their descendents, we are going through the same process. The difference is that these viruses can have up fifty generations in one day; subsequently it is more noticeable how evolution works by taking a close look at these organisms. IT IS A NATURAL PROCESS..
can someone please tell me how approx. 200 years of temperature data can be statistically significant when the earth is 15-25 Billion years old?
granted people estimate the temp of the periods before the last 200 we have kept records, but there is no way they can be 100% accurate to within a single degree with those estimates.
It is a truism that causes precede their effects and it is indisputable that even Al Gore’s 450,000 year graph of oscillations of earth temperatures and CO2 concentrations shows that more often than not temperature changes precede changes in CO2. Thus there is nothing in that data that even suggests that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has anything whatsoever to do with changes in earth temperature. That the two variables wax and wane together indicates a statistical correlation but has nothing to say about the causal relationship - - that is indicated by the phase relations and they are contrary to the CO2-warming hypothesis.
There’s far more evidence to suggest that pot smoking causes adult onset psychosis, as demonstrated by Al Gore’s delusional poetry, than there is proof that global warming even exists. It takes an IQ greater than one’s shoe size to pen something comparable to poetry, yet in addition to his substantial carbon footprint, Al Gore stands to net billions of US dollars for his global warming scam, upon none of which will he pay taxes.
In 1971, I first encountered the GLOBAL WARMING CULT. Terry McAuliffe was pushing the fledgling global flooding ideology out of a cleverly named unisex-clothing shop called Hang-Ups, in a converted African American Church, acquired under false pretenses and wittily christened THE ARK, on South Patrick Street, in Alexandria, Virginia. As a live music venue, THE ARK would easily eclipse New York’s already famous Fillmore East, but folded a short time later due to corrupt business practices.
Although persuasive, the global flooding argument didn't ring true. I knew that NASA, the military and government agencies did extensive climate research, and said as much. If global warming could melt the polar ice caps and thus cause global flooding by 1976, the alarm should come from the aforementioned sources. Perhaps not coincidentally, by 1976 the Earth’s fossil fuel deposits would also be depleted. It was a grim scenario. Terry McAuliffe, who probably named THE ARK himself, took me aside and explained, when it came to global warming; you couldn’t trust the government.
As we know, 1976 came and went without a global catastrophe. I still had that $45-dollar pair of striped slacks just like Hillary’s. I don’t know which was worse. I never regretted being booted from the cabal (I was hardly ever in), and never expected to run into Terry or his disciples again, especially decades later in sunny California. Yet there they were on the Central Coast, whistling the same old tune with some major new variations. They’d applied the global warming hysteria to higher education. Like global warming itself, education now became a massive fraud scheme designed to enrich the GLOBAL WARMING CULT. By 1995, The Brethren Of The Coast had grown exponentially. There would be much more to manmade global warming than mere water spotting: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Ps. Of course should one believe global warming proponent Bill Clinton, and like I mean who doesn’t, he didn’t inhale; now it’s supposed to get colder before it gets warmer.