Russian hackers expose global warming fraud

Thanks for the links.

nbsggfsfsfs wrote:

Many pseudo-sciences are really religious theology.

Global warming (Congress wouldn't allow a leading climatologist to address, flat out stating that it would "embarrass" Al Gore), evolution (far more scientific philosophy than science), Marxism (economic theory, that while "atheistic", was very much more a religion than it ever was science), psychiatry/psychology (Freud/Jung/etc., mysticism not science), etc.

Absurd nonsense. And the fact that you throw evolution in there with Marxism shows how clueless you are. Who ever claimed that marxism was a science like biology is?? No one.

So biology is a "pseudo-science" now?? Like I said, conservatives believe in creating their own truth. If they don't like what the scientists tell them, then they can claim there is no such thing as real science anyway. They have succeeded in "proving" (to themselves) that any and all stories that are reported by any news organization other than the WSJ and Fox News are liberally biased and therefore untrue, and of course they have also "proved" (to themselves) that the Bible is as good a source of objective facts as any scientific textbook. Lastly, they believe that Jenny McCarthy is as good a source of information on vaccines as the CDC (and yes, some liberals are guilty of that last sin too).

The age of the internet. It hasn't made many of us smarter. On the contrary, it has allowed the ignorant to easily disseminate their misinformation to the world and the gullible to search out those lies and find comfort in getting the answer they wanted. Scary stuff.

Did you people defending Global warming actually read the e-mail posted earlier in this thread? It states, purely, nakedly and unambiguously that if the data is in conflict w/ the theory than the data must be inadequate. This is simply a stunning statement and certainly gives great creedence to the idea that the scientists are being driven by ideology instead of data.

This is not the first time and it does not necessarily mean the scientists are nefarious. It also doesn't mean that Global warming is necessarily wrong although it should heighten scrutiny of researchers, not just these. Scientists routinely fit their data w/in a conceptual framework and massage that data until the whole model becomes untenable--Kuhn's structure of Scientific Revolution supports this process well.

Quote "Did you people defending Global warming actually read the e-mail posted earlier in this thread? It states, purely, nakedly and unambiguously that if the data is in conflict w/ the theory than the data must be inadequate. This is simply a stunning statement and certainly gives great creedence to the idea that the scientists are being driven by ideology instead of data."

Can you really blame the scientists for being concerned about what information they openly disclose to the public and how said public might react? A lot of the arguments that I've seen on this thread indicate that the general public is not intelligent or interested enough to properly research the issue themselves - instead relying on partisan leaders in the media to shape their views. With the huge amount of funding that the anti-global warming group enjoys, you can bet that they will spin any contrasting evidence - even if it's irrelevant - into more public doubt.

I did my Masters in climate modeling and I can tell you that there is no debate among climate scientists that humans are increasing the levels of CO2 into the atmosphere and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which absorbs light and re-emits its energy back to the Earth causing warming. The CO2 alone is not going to make a huge difference in the Earth's climate but it will be enough to start other positive feedback loops such as decreasing the Earth's albedo (fewer snow/ice at high latitudes), releasing methane from the Arctic and possibly from the oceans, warming the oceans and increasing the amount of water (a strong greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.... etc. It will take hundreds, even thousands of years to feel the full effects of some of these feedbacks. This is the main reason why we haven't seen that large of an increase in global temperatures... yet.

As for scientists being deceptive in what they disclose to the media, at least they aren't blatantly lieing to Congress like the anti-global warming crowd. To all of the people who think that it is only scientists who support global warming who are not being completely honest:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html

But don't blame Pat Michaels. He's receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from coal and energy companies so he is just being a responsible family man and looking after his own personal welfare... just like Conservatives claim Al Gore is doing with his carbon credits.

i don't understand people who think global warming is a fraud. do they really think humans have no effect on the environment? try running in the smog of L.A. or Beijing, it doesn't take a scientist to see that CO2 ain't no good.

smog isn't CO2...

well, maybe i'm an idiot, but my point is that humans pollute and pollution affects the environment in a palpable way. the more we pollute, the more affect it has. am i way off here?

some of the questions we're aking in this debate:

is CO2 pollution?

is CO2 causing an increase in global temps?

is an increase in global temps bad?

are more scientists fudging their data to get into the ipcc?

wtf?

[quote]Mr. Obvious wrote:Did you people defending Global warming actually read the e-mail posted earlier in this thread? It states, purely, nakedly and unambiguously that if the data is in conflict w/ the theory than the data must be inadequate. This is simply a stunning statement and certainly gives great creedence to the idea that the scientists are being driven by ideology instead of data.

[quote]

Yes, actually, and the ramifications could be damning... if they reach father than the University of East Anglia. That notwithstanding, I'm equally skeptical of any information that came from A BUNCH OF RUSSIAN HACKERS.

At best, what this does is nullify the work of a certain group of scientists.

wilfredo wrote:some of the questions we're aking in this debate:

is CO2 pollution?

is CO2 causing an increase in global temps?

is an increase in global temps bad?

are more scientists fudging their data to get into the ipcc?

wtf?

Perfect set of questions!

The only thing I can say is that, yes, I think everyone can agree that - given the current climatalogical models - a *signifigant* increase in global tempatures is bad. anthropologic possiblities aside, it's generally agreed that rapid envrionmental shifts of any sort put stress on people and the environment around them. That said, a dramatic reduction in temperature would be bad too.

Smog tends to follow the reaction something like NO2+O2+hv.NO +O3

which only happens because in California heating up the catalytic converter before driving off is too inconvenient... and over congestion...

blahblahblah wrote:

The CO2 alone is not going to make a huge difference in the Earth's climate but it will be enough to start other positive feedback loops such as decreasing the Earth's albedo (fewer snow/ice at high latitudes), releasing methane from the Arctic and possibly from the oceans, warming the oceans and increasing the amount of water (a strong greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.... etc. It will take hundreds, even thousands of years to feel the full effects of some of these feedbacks. This is the main reason why we haven't seen that large of an increase in global temperatures... yet.

More H2O in the atmosphere causes more clouds. More clouds increases the albedo. It's a self dampening loop. That's (partially) why the climate fluctuates. It doesn't get continually warmer or continually cooler. And as you point out, this takes place over hundreds and thousands of years, not a few decades as the media darlings would have us believe. Given the slow pace of change, people will easily adapt.

Spending trillions of dollars to stop a natural process that is unstoppable is ludicrous. That money could be much better spent growing food, providing clean water, eradicating disease, and trying to raise the standard of living around the world. A water treatment plant in the Congo will save millions more people than all the carbon credits in the world.

Global Warming is complete hokum. It's like a secular religion with it's own popes priests and etc.. all of whom will benefit from their disinformation.

They picked the perfect subject too. Weather! Weather is what started most religions any way, man's need to try to control or explain what was happening to him. Back then it was the Sun God, now it's Global Warming!

Same song, different dance, same result.

ataglance wrote:

Global Warming is complete hokum. It's like a secular religion with it's own popes priests and etc.. all of whom will benefit from their disinformation.

They picked the perfect subject too. Weather! Weather is what started most religions any way, man's need to try to control or explain what was happening to him. Back then it was the Sun God, now it's Global Warming!

Same song, different dance, same result.

Interestingly enough, global warming also comes with it's own Garden of Eden, it's own Fall into Sin, it's own struggle with evil agents (people who put wealth ahead of the common good), and a final battle for the fate of the earth, at which point we will get either paradise or destruction.

This thread is from Nov 2009 right after the Climategate scandal exposed the top scientists in the AGW debate of manipulating the data. The following is a excerpt from one of the leaked emails that should have destroyed the credibility of AGW forever. It's a snippet of computer code that reads as follows...

;

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

What this code does is artificially adjust temperature data from 1940 to 1970 to eliminate a decline in global temperature that could not be accounted for by the IPCC's climate models.

This should have been big news. Instead, it was buried by the media and East Anglia university, which orchestrated the cover-up to protect its millions of dollars in climate change grants. Most of you reading this have probably never seen this code.

fisky wrote:

This thread is from Nov 2009 right after the Climategate scandal exposed the top scientists in the AGW debate of manipulating the data. . .

Actually Briffa etal published a paper on "the decline" in 1998, more than 10 years prior to "the scandal", which is a curious way of "orchestrating a cover-up".

fisky wrote:

This thread is from Nov 2009 right after the Climategate scandal exposed the top scientists in the AGW debate of manipulating the data.

Except you are totally wrong. Several criminal investigations cleared all the scientists. There was no fraud. The only scandal was how come there was no investigation into who did the hacking.

quote

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."

/quote

You really should stop watching FoxNews.

yogibear wrote:

fisky wrote:

This thread is from Nov 2009 right after the Climategate scandal exposed the top scientists in the AGW debate of manipulating the data.

Except you are totally wrong. Several criminal investigations cleared all the scientists. There was no fraud. The only scandal was how come there was no investigation into who did the hacking.

quote

"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."

/quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

You really should stop watching FoxNews.

This ^

I know, I know, way more boring than a good old fashioned conspiracy theory. So I can't blame you for not reading it really.

Justin91 wrote:

[quote]ataglance wrote:

Global Warming is complete hokum. It's like a secular religion with it's own popes priests and etc.. all of whom will benefit from their disinformation.

They picked the perfect subject too. Weather! Weather is what started most religions any way, man's need to try to control or explain what was happening to him. Back then it was the Sun God, now it's Global Warming!

Same song, different dance, same result.[quote]

Interestingly enough, global warming also comes with it's own Garden of Eden, it's own Fall into Sin, it's own struggle with evil agents (people who put wealth ahead of the common good), and a final battle for the fate of the earth, at which point we will get either paradise or destruction.

That is a good point. There are lots of people making a lot of money on propped up, subsidized green companies at the expense of the common man who suffers from higher prices and a weaker economy. But these global warming zealots could care less about the common man's struggle to provide for his family.