This is topic Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.
Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in data about temperatures.
The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.
Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."
In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.
"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact the police about the data breach.
TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.
"That was an e-mail from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?" he said.
The Telegraph has posted some of the more scathing excerpts from these emails, which the newspaper suggests points to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.
Others suggest the comments are simply "scientists talking about science." In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that "if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists."
Still, one notable e-mail from the hacked files clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process:
"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. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?"
The earth is in trouble all but a few understand this big capitals profit is at stake if anyone does a fix it means there industry goes so the big capital protects its profits by slowly ruining the world.
Posted by Relentless. on :
LOL.. You commies are shown clear proof that the numbers are forged.. the numbers that found your religion are faked by morons and you sluff it off with little more than a yawn? Come on guys... Atlest show me some dirt on the hackers.. show me something. You guys were just hit between the eyes and all I see is a wandering half comment in search of a direction? Gotta be a brain dead mineral to not see the whole CO2 issue was BS to begin with. Gotta be long since left evolutionally(Yes I made that word up.. why?.. cause it ****ing fits.. that's why) to not see that the earth's mean temperature fluctuates on a million year cycle.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Yes Raybo I was including you in that one...
Just hoping to avoid your inevitable confusion.
Posted by raybond on :
I am no commie I may be on the left but there is a big difference it may surprise you I am christian before I am anything else. One thing for sure I have seen the worst people in the world and delt with them and I have seen a lot of societies mistakes and I know the republicans don't have the answer or I should say the right wing conservatives.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
You call it a smoking gun?
quote:a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in data about temperatures.
what about that is a gun? smoking or non??
What decline in temperatures? What plan to hide it?
Can you prove he falsified data?
Who is he in collusion with? What proof do you have to substantiate that claim?
Is there any further information less than a decade old that is suspect in its ethics?
Why did the article qualify the statement positing personal doubts and manipulation with the tagline
quote: though the much of the scientific language in the e-mails is esoteric and hard to interpret.
Could it be to give themselves an out for a statement that could otherwise be proved fraudulent?
It doesn't appear this guy is a non-biased scientist but I see no smoking gun.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: LOL.. You commies are shown clear proof that the numbers are forged.. the numbers that found your religion are faked by morons and you sluff it off with little more than a yawn? Come on guys... Atlest show me some dirt on the hackers.. show me something. You guys were just hit between the eyes and all I see is a wandering half comment in search of a direction? Gotta be a brain dead mineral to not see the whole CO2 issue was BS to begin with. Gotta be long since left evolutionally(Yes I made that word up.. why?.. cause it ****ing fits.. that's why) to not see that the earth's mean temperature fluctuates on a million year cycle.
i see proof of nothing in that article. you'll have to do better than those few lame quotes.
as for your claim that the CO2 issue is BS? please prove to me that we are not converting millions of years of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in a couple of centuries. while destroying a good percentage of the CO2 sequestering mechanism that was already in existence.
it doesn't even take much common sense to understand all of the principles. there is no "scheme" to destroy the economy, there is no "socialist plot" to take over the world.
in fact? if we just ignore the environment? we will all live in a cess pool. China is a good example.
even if the climate is on a "normal upswing" the additional strain of the extra CO2 will make it worse.
never mind the fact that the Govt that whoever is out of power hates so much is always owned by the same people - the same people that figure to make profit by having somebody else to pay for the mess they make. nah, i'm not ignoring the fact that the scientists get paid to do what they do either....
destroying the planet you are leaving to your kids for a few bucks? that's evil. plain and simple.
Posted by Relentless. on :
No one is suggesting that we should simply refuse to clean anything and live like slobs... The fact of the matter is the current argument has nothing to do with that. The argument at hand is the intentional skewing of numbers to promote an unproven theory. A theory that is being lauded as fact and is being used to enslave and enprison the entire human race. The earth has been hotter and it has been colder... It has had more CO2 and it has had less. Right now we are in a slight cooling trend based on... The big yellow thing in the sky. When the sun is quiet much like it is now, we see cooler temperatures. When it is active, like it was during solar cycle 23, we see warmer temperatures. good news is solar cycle 24 is begining and we are now seeing the second and third sun spots of that cycle emerge. This means soon there will be a warming trend on this planet as well as the others in this system. And no skewing of the numbers will change any minds as to the cause. Blaming any warming or cooling trends on CO2 is much like blaming parking meters for an engine failure.
Posted by glassman on :
show me the intentioanl skewing -i read the article, and then read the "source article" that's really a b log spot
the fact is that scientists argue amongst themselves, and yes they scheme... esp. when it comes to getting editors hired and fired at journals. scientists are basically rated on their performance by whether they produce peer reviewed publications...
i've shown you how much CO2 is produced daily by oil alone. we use 80 million barrels per day, more or less. i didn't even go to coal and methane.
the warming is happening, and there's nothing in there to show that anybody has forged data. there are only quotes out of context that are absolutely not proving anybody skewed figures. if you were to go to the actual emails and pull quotes and links so that i can see the context? i might be convinced that they were actually up to no good, but that's not in either article that i saw...
i know that old temps (over 100 years old or so) are based on tree ring measuremnts for crying out loud.
i don't care about that. the critical data is in the tropospheric studies.
we burn down the rain forests, we destroy mangrove swamps (mangroves account for as much sequestation as the forests) we live in/on a spaceship. yep, it's big'un, but we are still responsible for our own survival. we all know that there's no future for people that think only in terms of today and tomorrow, forgetting entirely about next week, or next year, or decade.
there are worse things at play than the cyclical rise and fall of temps.
there's more methane just laying on the ocean floor than there is proven oil deposits. it is frozen due to the temp and pressure. raise the ocean FLOOR just 1.5 degrees across the globe and we will release most of that methane. it is a nightmare beyond comprehension, and it would probably happen very fast once it begins..
if we affect that temp 1/2 degree and nature does the other full degree we are in just as much trouble.
i know Gore is jerk, but that doesn't really matter. the science is sound despite what the oil co's keep hiring their scientists to say....
lastly? this one university is not the only place studying climate change and these all appear to be internal discussion by members of that university...
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote: From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxxDear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.
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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers Phil
Dunno, Glass, that email alone seems to invalidate your entire argument. The practice is spoken of as common procedure...
Posted by glassman on :
"Mike" refers to Jones' colleague Michael Mann, who told the New York Times that the "trick" was simply a way of solving a data problem. In this case, the warming trend of the last century was detected in tree-ring samples only until 1960, but it continued in thermometer readings.
keep in mind that these guys are not the sole source for "world temps".
troposheric studies have been pretty conclusive that CO2 is very weak greenhouse gas.
it's less then ten times as strong as methane C4H4 but we are releasing millenia's worth of it and also reducing our ability to sequester it.
i am no fan of tree ring data. it is very extrapolative.... forget the charts entirely...
we need to begin planning for the long-term now. not next decade not next generation...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “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.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
and? high CO2 levels actually promote plant growht don't they?
so more CO2might mean fatter rings at the same temps.. i dunno...
what i am sure of is that if we use up all the oil on the planet and don't "gift" our kids kids with a really good replacement? we are noting more than SOB's. ( i know, that means the kids are too, )
leaving it till the last minute and need is greatest is just dumb.
as for the cost? SOMEONE must bear it SOMETIME. and someone will get rich when they do solve the problem. the oil co's want it to be them of course, but they have shareholders to answer to today as well...
when i go to buy a tool? i don't buy ht echeapest on available. i can't justify the snap-on man either since i don't spin wrenches professionally... but i know that the cheapest route is rarely the most economical Posted by Relentless. on :
Glass, you must already know that our thirst for oil will be lessening as time goes on. It will have nothing to do with constitution raping legislation... It will be a direct result of the electric cars that will be coming out in the next few years. I'll use this example again:
Quicker quarter mile than a viper and runs 250 miles... That's the future and it is exactly what I predicted would be needed to kick start the electric trend.
Posted by jordanreed on :
mama!
Posted by glassman on :
Nationwide in 2006, coal provided 49 percent of the electric capacity, while natural gas usage comprised 20 percent, nuclear 19 percent, hydroelectric 7 percent and wind/solar/biomass 2 percent.
Posted by Relentless. on :
So let us build nuke plants... Nuclear is the answer for truly squashing our coal needs. It was twenty years ago that the environmentalists were *****ing about nuclear... Now it seems they were wrong.. Shocking I know. The point is that no matter the solution presented the wackos have a problem. The only solution is to exterminate the human race. Can we atleast admit that is the only solution that is acceptable?... To them. As I've been saying for years: It IS changing.. we are moving towards readily available renewable energy resources. But that never slows or impedes the whining and complaining for the greentards. You are not going to just hit a switch and have all six billion people start using electric cars and producing non polluting energy...
Posted by glassman on :
i'm for more nuke plants.
it would be nice if somebody actually took the waste and disposed of it properly tho Posted by Relentless. on :
bleh.. what's a little radiation among friends
Posted by Relentless. on :
What a perfectly timed story:
quote:MIDDLETOWN, Pa. - November 22, 2009 -- A small amount of radiation has been detected in a reactor building at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in central Pennsylvania.
About 150 employees were sent home after the radiation was detected Saturday afternoon, but officials say there is no public health risk.
Exelon Nuclear spokeswoman Beth Archer says investigators are searching for the cause, but that the radiation was quickly contained.
Radiological surveys showed the contamination was confined to surfaces inside the containment building.
The unit has been shut down for refueling and maintenance since Oct. 26. The company hopes to resume activities Sunday.
Officials are checking employees who had been working in the building for possible unusual radiation exposure.
A partial meltdown occurred in Three Mile Island's Unit 2 reactor in March 1979.
Posted by Relentless. on :
What a shocking coincedence:
quote:Climate change data dumped Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.
Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.
He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Any elected official who was involved in this should be hung then shot.. could be shot then hung... I am somewhat flexible on the order. Publicly... When I mean involved I mean supported in any way, either by vote or monetarily. You know I could support drawn and quartered... Add that to the list... I think in some cases the quartering should be last in order just to add to the dramatic effect, but surely there are a few individuals that should be quartered first... Again.. I am flexible.
Posted by glassman on :
wow , i am so happy that we can all forget about this problem now DQR thanx so much Posted by Relentless. on :
I'm truly sorry that your religion has been proven fake, Glass. I'm just trying to spare you the pain of laboring over what to do with these folks. Don't worry.. I have it taken care of.
Posted by raybond on :
Don't be so fast to lord it over everyone, these people that hacked in were criminals doing a criminal act. I would be the frist one to say i was taken in if this all proves to come out the way some think. Experience has told me never trust anyone who will do an act of criminality
Posted by glassman on :
LOL. the data storage issue is an old one Ray, don't start assuming the scientists have committed fraud....
the data was "lost" in the '80's..
they had storage options back in the 80s. Optoins included: 1) Typing the raw data into the appendix of a "report". (Ph.D. Theses in engineering used to do this back in the 80s.) 2) Storing it on cards. 3) Placing all data in manila folders, putting it in a box and sending it to some storage archive. (DOE nathional labs do this with some data, and have since WWII) 4) Placing it on magnetic tape and storing that. 5) Placing it on floppy disks and storing those.
the data in question only covers since 1850 and shows less than a 1 degree change in "world temps".
it is in fact the opinion of the person (Roger Pielke) that announced the data was lost after his request was denied that, well here it is in his own words:
Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on -- but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
To be absolutely clear, none of what I write here should be taken as implying that actions to decarbonize the global economy or improve adaptation do not make sense -- they do. However, just because climate change is important and because there are opponents to action that will seize upon whatever they can to make their arguments, does not justify overlooking or defending this degree of scientific sloppiness and ineptitude. Implementing successful climate policy will have to overcome the missteps of the climate science community, and this is a big one. Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 8/12/2009 08:53:00 AM
in fact? it would be somewhat odd for the data to be "downloadable" since it was acquired prior to the 90's when Windows made working with PC's common.
i bet the scientists working with he data still have copies of their working versions since they constantly work on them.
Pielke has always been on the "other side" of the debate from Jones too... they would be professional adversaries..
Posted by glassman on :
here's the website that supposedly announce the data was lost:
Page temporarily unavailable The main CRU webserver is currently down.
These pages are being served from the CRU Emergency Webserver.
Not all pages from the main server are available, and what pages are available may be out of date.
Climatic Research Unit
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Any elected official who was involved in this should be hung then shot.. could be shot then hung... I am somewhat flexible on the order. Publicly... When I mean involved I mean supported in any way, either by vote or monetarily. You know I could support drawn and quartered... Add that to the list... I think in some cases the quartering should be last in order just to add to the dramatic effect, but surely there are a few individuals that should be quartered first... Again.. I am flexible.
well, when you can explain to a court of law what crime has been committed? you might get a conviction of a misdeameanor...
you better get your meds adjusted agian Posted by glassman on :
so DQR, lets clear up the timeline here a little.
the CRU announced several months ago that SOME of the data would not be available.
then the servers get hacked and there is some publicity and the OLD news that all of the data is not available is re-released as if it's been announced the last couple of days...
i definitely see conspiracy here. i see a conspiracy to try to make people beleive a bunch of liars.
i dug up your unlinked article here it is:
CLIMATEGATE COMMENT Climate change data dumped by Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor, The Times
He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.
of course the climate realists dot com would be funded by big oil
i only put the last sentence in because it is a blatant lie. (one of many)
Jones in fact does not use any terms like “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans in his papers,
here is his exact wording:
'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12.
i don't think very likely is equal to “unequivocally” in the English language...
this whole affair just shows how desperate some people are to try to nullify the scientific research.
Posted by raybond on :
the people that hacked in were criminals if anybody believes it or not . Like I said wait till the dust settles. If you are interested scientist are the least percentage of people serving time. They are usually truth tellers and people that live by facts.
Posted by Relentless. on :
That is the same excuse used by most of the AGW crowd too blinded to see reality.. Oh they're criminals so we can't trust them... Amazing how some are so dense but apparently still bipedal.. The point of all of this is we cannot enter into any sort of legislation either local or global based on the findings of a group of scientists who were very clearly forging those findings. To do so would be treason. If you want to claim the hackers are bad people in an effort to save what is left of your religion then that is fine, but the folks who are elected have a duty to not be so prepubescent in their actions. Those folks have sworn to uphold the constitution and are liable when they break it.. Any call to wait till the dust settles is an aim to allow good ole Obama the time needed to sign our country away in Copenhagen.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: so DQR, lets clear up the timeline here a little.
the CRU announced several months ago that SOME of the data would not be available.
then the servers get hacked and there is some publicity and the OLD news that all of the data is not available is re-released as if it's been announced the last couple of days...
i definitely see conspiracy here. i see a conspiracy to try to make people beleive a bunch of liars.
i dug up your unlinked article here it is:
CLIMATEGATE COMMENT Climate change data dumped by Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor, The Times
He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.
of course the climate realists dot com would be funded by big oil
i only put the last sentence in because it is a blatant lie. (one of many)
Jones in fact does not use any terms like “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans in his papers,
here is his exact wording:
'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12.
i don't think very likely is equal to “unequivocally” in the English language...
this whole affair just shows how desperate some people are to try to nullify the scientific research.
Must have taken you ages to uncover an article posted from the front page of http://www.drudgereport.com/ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece. Claiming that we can't trust any scientists or organizations funded even in part by oil companies would then lead to the realization that we could not trust any organizations endorsed by your hero Mr. Gore... Fact remains they were faking data and they were caught... Everything said trying to excuse or avoid this is pointless and shows bias... and weakness. Weakness of mind, will, and soul.
Posted by glassman on :
group of scientists who were very clearly forging those findings.
you haven't shown anything to even suggest that, much less prove it. i guess you are parroting what drudge told you..
i spent about three minutes googling and reading it. and found out where they got it from...
i'm not caliming we can or cannot trust any of them in specific. i don't trust anybody.
endorsed by your hero Mr. Gore..
LOL. i hate Gore and the Clintons, am on record as such and as voting against Gore in '00- you are slipping...
only fools go after the messenger.
Posted by Relentless. on :
I'm not going after the messenger.. I'm aiming at the culprits.. Try to focus. Glass I would love to post the entirety of the leaked documents but I seriously doubt Bob has the space for another 61MB of unformatted emails, PDF's, Word files, MS Powerpoint files. Were you to download them yourself you could easily see what us messenger haters are on about, instead of fighting blind like you are.
Posted by glassman on :
actually? if you think hard? you'll remember that i am somewhat skeptical of temp records collected based on tree rings friend.
i am not skeptical about the fact that we are burning the accumulation of millions of years of carbon in a few decades.
i've read everything you've pushed out there and even a little more.
most of the "journalists" covering this story use words like "suggest" and other qualifiers that genrally mean they already had their minds made up and are looking for evidence to support their beleifs which you are doing too... the qualifiers also mean that no proof is there. cuz it ain't.
on the other hand? i know how the scientific community operates, and fraudsters in science usually go into the pink sheets and not academia.
most academic scientific fraud is not about publishing bad data, it's about hiding good data.
for instance, there was a researcher exposing cultured nerve tissue and cells to cell phone radiation way back in the 90's. i met him. his research never got published. in twenty-thirty years? there will most likely be real epidemic of gliomas and other brain tumors/cancer because his study wasburied, and people don't want to beleive their cell phones are dangerous...(they are just too cool to be dangerous)...
it's crazy how some politicians are reacting to global warming, i agree with that...
you will never convince me that we do not have to address this problem in a rational way. esp. since there's so much easy money (as opposed to earned money) at stake.
i have no intention of quitting blowing glass. i expect our leaders in all areas to find a solution that we can all ive and thrive with for centuries into the future....
oil is a finite product. coal? we know how dirty it is just look at China.. Nat Gas? we'll never run out of that Posted by Relentless. on :
Glass, that's just not true. We are not adding a million year's worth of carbon dioxide in a few decades. Our addition to the normally produced CO2 is miniscule. You are basing your knowledge on the writings and findings of obviously dishonest people. No scientist... let me rephrase that.. No honest scientist in search of real answers would EVER... EVER delete, discard, lose, his base data.. That base data is everything to an honest scientist.
.8 degrees Celsius in 157 years? What's the margin of error?.. ten degrees? Good god we are planning to change the very nature of world governance.. based on this ****? And you're buying into it?
We do agree completely on limiting pollution. We do agree that we as a nation need to move away from fossil fuels. We will not agree about this global warming...
Posted by glassman on :
We are not adding a million year's worth of carbon dioxide in a few decades. Our addition to the normally produced CO2 is miniscule.
that's crazy DQR, we have not only severely damaged the carbon sequestration systems, but we burn fuels that took millions of years to be sequestered. You know how oil is made, and yo know it takes millions of years to do it....
8 degrees Celsius in 157 years? What's the margin of error?.. ten degrees? Good god we are planning to change the very nature of world governance.. based on this ****? And you're buying into it?
uh, asked an answered several times.
i actually read the paper these guys write , not the rehashed, reinterpreted, sensationlaised news articles, i highly recomend that if you want to call them liars and frauds, that you go to the libaerry and read the Journals instead of the news articles, i think you will find that in those Journals? plenty of heated debate and arguing is accompanying the articles in the letters sections. Said debate is done by people that have the same education levels in the same fields.
practicing science is an art just like the law and medicine... Einstein said it pretty well:
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
however, to call them frauds? that's not for you or me to judge, it is for their peers to decide.
Einstein was blackballed by his professor. That's why he was working as a Govt employee in the patent office instead of as professor when he wrote his first important paper. Einstein’s early papers all come from attempts to demonstrate that atoms exist and have a finite nonzero size. At the time of his first paper in 1902, it was not yet completely accepted by physicists that atoms were real, even though chemists had good evidence ever since Antoine Lavoisier’s work a century earlier. The reason physicists were skeptical was because no 19th century theory could fully explain the properties of matter from the properties of atoms.
you won't find me defending the politicians mess that's being made of this.
Scientists have to raise funds to pay for their research. Alot of horsehockey gets slung because of that, but thiey face losing all funding for life if they are caught faking their work as you and a whole lot of people are accusing Jones of doing. There is not a global conspiracy to commit scientific fraud. There is huge global argument, and there is alot of money at stake. What i wantr to see come out of the global warming fears is some funding for new science, not cap and trade or any other kind of socialism.
IMO? the people that call the scientists socialist propagandists just haven't taken the time to understand what the scientists are really saying and doing, they are simply listening to political spindoctors.
Posted by raybond on :
criminal is a criminal an act of crime for what ever the reason is an act of crime the bank robber that commits the crime for a good cause a robin hood I have seen them them all they are sick and criminals and are not to be trusted like you punk. and I am talking to you rent
Posted by glassman on :
as to the destruction of data. i bet yo that it will come out that somebody has the data. it's just not on the servers ready to be dumped. the people that worked with it back in the 80's did not beleive they were working on "saving dafriggingplanet" they were simply collecting data for "esoteric" papers which scientists have to pump out every year to show they haven't been spending all their time chasing co-eds (just most of it).
the data would still be available from the same sources it was collected from then unless it was put in garbage can- i got to work on my first computer in 81 in th enavy and we used DOS..we had a green screen... before that? did write some fortran in Engineering 101 on punch cards, i bought my own first Apple 2e puter in 82 *still have it in storage) and it even has a joy stick.. i think it has a couple of 64K ram chips and i can't remeber how much disk space, but i know that my first Gigabyte hard drive was a Sony Vaio i bought in 97 i upgraded it myself to 4 gigs ... id' already had 2 PC's beside the apple before that.. a 386 and then a 486 Pentium wooohooo!
storage of data was not nearly as simple s it is today...
Posted by Upside on :
Did raybond really call Relentless a "punk" a post or two ago?
Posted by glassman on :
i'm sure he took it as a compliment Posted by jordanreed on :
well,well,well...nice to see upside stick his nose in the room...where ya been?
Posted by buckstalker on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: criminal is a criminal an act of crime for what ever the reason is an act of crime the bank robber that commits the crime for a good cause a robin hood I have seen them them all they are sick and criminals and are not to be trusted like you punk. and I am talking to you rent
Congrats on nearly mastering that keyboard... Truly amazing what they can teach autistic chimps these days... I'm assuming its the shock collar that produces the bitter attitude.. but.. still... congrats.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: as to the destruction of data. i bet yo that it will come out that somebody has the data. it's just not on the servers ready to be dumped. the people that worked with it back in the 80's did not beleive they were working on "saving dafriggingplanet" they were simply collecting data for "esoteric" papers which scientists have to pump out every year to show they haven't been spending all their time chasing co-eds (just most of it).
the data would still be available from the same sources it was collected from then unless it was put in garbage can- i got to work on my first computer in 81 in th enavy and we used DOS..we had a green screen... before that? did write some fortran in Engineering 101 on punch cards, i bought my own first Apple 2e puter in 82 *still have it in storage) and it even has a joy stick.. i think it has a couple of 64K ram chips and i can't remeber how much disk space, but i know that my first Gigabyte hard drive was a Sony Vaio i bought in 97 i upgraded it myself to 4 gigs ... id' already had 2 PC's beside the apple before that.. a 386 and then a 486 Pentium wooohooo!
storage of data was not nearly as simple s it is today...
I think we differ on our opinion of the ethics of these folks. I would be willing to wager that if the data is still around on some server or closet and it is found by them.. we will never know about it. Scientists do not like being proven wrong... To reveal the base data would open all of their work up to scrutiny...
Never owned an apple.. Did have a commodore 64 and then an omega 128. That was cutting edge back in the day.
Posted by glassman on :
scientists are people like everybody else.
i think if you read their papers? you'll see what i'm getting at about the "unequivocally" vs "likely" statements. Jones did not say "unequivocally", the people that put the most spin on things are not the scientists..
when i read the news articles, and compare them to tthe actual papers? i often wonder if the "news folks" even read the same papers...
i am pretty sure i know why you are upset, but it isn't the scientists that have been screwing with all the data, it's news people and then of cours th politicians...
the only reason i have seen ANY of Al Gores movie is that i was obliged to particpate in the "viewing" at a family event... i disappeared as soon as i could without being noticed.
measured dissolved CO2 is going up in the oceans too..
BUT!
how long ago did they begin taking the measuremnts?
Posted by Relentless. on :
Well I think your last question really hits at the real issue. This is a very new science. Being that it is a very new science is alarm enough to carefully ignore all of the findings. There is a constant in all of science and that is scientists are always wrong for the fist fifty years. At some point there will be an epiphany by some poor guy who will never get the credit.
Posted by T e x on :
Glass: when i read the news articles, and compare them to tthe actual papers? i often wonder if the "news folks" even read the same papers...
true, very few reporters are skilled at handling either scientific or legal topics.
Traditionally, journalism as we used to know it was good at handling "events": fires, robberies, conventions, etc. Sometimes even war: Witness Herr's Dispatches.
RD: This is a very new science.
The point remains that just about anybody can tell we are experiencing what Amory Lovins calls "global weirding." Who can say what is exactly right? Reminds me of penny-stock scams when "true longs" demand proof rather than simply following common sense.
In this case, the climate, the globe: yeah, it's a good idea to reduce emissions, pollution. If we **** up the planet by being efficient, then it was meant to be...
But to kill it by being wasteful, wantful, wasting, getting fat and stoopid...that's not OK.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Tex, our memory isn't long enough to compare weather events such that we would know weird from normal. Your point about not living like slobs is accurate. It's not worthy of government intervention like we are about to see, but it has merit.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Tex, our memory isn't long enough to compare weather events such that we would know weird from normal. Your point about not living like slobs is accurate. It's not worthy of government intervention like we are about to see, but it has merit.
funny thing about Govt intervention. i'm getting tired of hearing people say the govt cannot do anything right.
the private sector is not better than the govt at getting things right.
i don't know what the current data is but the last i heard only 1 in 4 startup businesses succceed.
we all know how many pink sheet co's are legit.
and we all know how many major private/public co's have failed in the last 20 yrs. Kmart Enron Sears, MCI, all the Broker/Banks... sheesh the list goes on and on.
if anything? the Govt outsurvives it all, it gives a small peice of continuity in a very evolutionary world. It was designed to undergo it's own revolutionary changes every 4 or 8 years regardless.
does that meant he Govt is great? heck no. it's a human product, it's a mess, but it's what we have to have to survive as a country.
i am a firm beleiver in natural selection and evolution. so, it's kinda funny to me that the same people calling themselves Creationists, are the proponents of Evolutionary Prinicples in economics.
seriously DQR, historically, most of the hatred for scientists comes right from that group. Most of the scientists are not only bad at politics? they are bad a social behaviour in every aspect. We made fun of them in high school remeber?
I'm not against natural selection in business. But i don't think living in a country that has a violent revolution every 100 yrs would a good place to live.
Posted by raybond on :
LOOKS LIKE ONE FOR THE OLD RENT CONGRATS
Dot Earth - New York Times blog December 1, 2009, 3:05 pm Head of Climate Unit Steps Down Pending Inquiry By ANDREW C. REVKIN
As the University of East Anglia investigates the disclosure of thousands of e-mail messages and documents from its Climatic Research Unit, as well as the implications of the contents for its climate research, the head of the unit is stepping aside. Here is the news release:
Prof. Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as director of the Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of e-mails from the unit.
Professor Jones said: “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible. After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the director’s role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the university for agreeing to this. The review process will have my full support.”
Vice Chancellor Prof. Edward Acton said: “I have accepted Professor Jones’s offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations. We will announce details of the independent review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days. I am delighted that Prof. Peter Liss, F.R.S., C.B.E., will become acting director.”
For more than a week, the episode has fueled a fierce debate on the blogosphere and in newspaper columns and once again placed global warming science under intense scrutiny. Presuming that the inquiry is as independent, probing and transparent as advertised, some clarity may emerge on many fronts.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
... id' already had 2 PC's beside the apple before that.. a 386 and then a 486 Pentium wooohooo!