Evidence of Global Warming Fraud!?

[stevewinn]

Great point Michelle. There's a huge difference between opposing the bad science and political activity behind the idea of AGW and opposing the idea that we are responsible for taking care of our planet.

i'll second that, great post by Michelle.

[Siara]

This kind of **** is SO annoying. Climate change is not a political issue. We need to determine whether (1) it's really happening (2) is human manipulation of the environment responsible (3) if it's happening, what should we do? These shouldn't be political questions. I think left-wingers and right-wingers would agree that if we're in the process of generating a catastrophe we need to get serious about addressing the problem.

If it IS happening, a few hundred years from now the remains of the human race will-- justifiably-- regard us as the most selfish, immature a-holes in history. Of course there's a level on which this won't matter because we'll all be dead.

For those of us who love natural beauty, love animals, and/or have spiritual attitudes related to nature we should feel sad that our lives as consumers are making a joke of our ethics.

Sorry to be dismal but my understanding of the facts is dismal. I can't think of a "cool" way to phrase things.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Siara

[questionmark]

This kind of **** is SO annoying. Climate change is not a political issue. We need to determine whether (1) it's really happening (2) is human manipulation of the environment responsible (3) if it's happening, what should we do?

These shouldn't be political questions. I think left-wingers and right-wingers would agree that if we're in the process of generating a catastrophe we need to get serious about addressing the problem.

If it IS happening, a few hundred years from now the remains of the human race will-- justifiably-- regard us as the most selfish, immature a-holes in history. Of course there's a level on which this won't matter because we'll all be dead.

For those of us who love natural beauty, love animals, and/or have spiritual attitudes related to nature we should feel sad that our lives as consumers are making a joke of our ethics.

Sorry to be dismal but my understanding of the facts is dismal. I can't think of a "cool" way to phrase things.

Left wingers and right wingers are only good at one thing: blame the other side. What is worse, they cannot even see the problems that exist if the "other side" discovered them first. All a big kindergarten.

[Raptor]

So, the explanations about how these quotes are taken out of context and provide the "proper" explanation of their context come from Pro-Man-Made Global Warming groups. OK, I'm now convinced.

So when provided with more insight from someone in the know you resort to attacking the source and making sarcastic comments.

Why don't you make an effort to engage the content of the argument in itself, or are you just another pawn in the absent minded partisan war?

[IamsSon]

Too bad. I'm winning, in case you haven't noticed. Go cry yourself a river and rant about Al Gore with your buddies on Conservapedia and WND.

I'm sure your buddies at RealClimate will agree you're winning.

What the hell? Everyone knows that Real Climate comments are moderated. Otherwise the scientists would get hate and nonsense spam from the likes of you.

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: update

Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500

Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we

put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre

thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go

there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way

you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about

what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any

questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you

might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold

comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think

they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd

like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a

resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put

forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our

best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont' get to use the RC

comments as a megaphone...

mike

Source

Oh, yeah, this is all about just making sure the "scientists" *cough* *cough* *political shills* *anti-science hacks* *cough* cough* don't get hate and nonsense spam.

BTW, I would never send spam or hate mail, but thanks for showing how you and your "scientist" buddies treat those who disagree with you.

Edited November 22, 2009 by IamsSon

[IamsSon]

So when provided with more insight from someone in the know you resort to attacking the source and making sarcastic comments.

Why don't you make an effort to engage the content of the argument in itself, or are you just another pawn in the absent minded partisan war?

Well, when it's looking like those "in the know" have been perpetrating a hoax on the rest of us, I think it is foolish to look to them for valid answers.

[questionmark]

Well, let me put it this way, on the "other side of the fence" are mostly people working for institutions that have sold us that smoking was good for us, asbestos dust a lung spa and the ozone hole absolutely no problem (BTW, the people in New Zealand still love us for that) and that aspetame does nothing to your brain. Why should we believe anything they say... at all?

[SQLserver]

I'm sure your buddies at RealClimate will agree you're winning.

Correct. Also, my friends at Geophysical Research Letters, Nature, Science, and PNAS would, too.

Oh, yeah, this is all about just making sure the "scientists" *cough* *cough* *political shills* *anti-science hacks* *cough* cough* don't get hate and nonsense spam.

BTW, I would never send spam or hate mail, but thanks for showing how you and your "scientist" buddies treat those who disagree with you. Posted Image

OK, this is so stupid.

In case you are unaware, virtually every major blog in the world has its comments moderated.

You have got to be kidding yourself. Of course that is what is about. It is completely within their right to moderate their blog comments. Heck, our forum is moderated.

Additionally, if you were to head over to Real Climate, you would notice that they are pretty liberal with what they will accept. As long as you aren't being an ********, they will accept your comment.

Additionally, as I said, this is pointless: It is completely within their right to moderate their blog. Heck, don't you realize that McIntyre moderates HIS blog? Seriously, you don't have a point here.

[Raptor]

Well, when it's looking like those "in the know" have been perpetrating a hoax on the rest of us, I think it is foolish to look to them for valid answers.

All the more reason to put your logic hat on and examine what's been said!

No good ever comes from blind dismissal, Iams. If you turn a blind eye you might as well just be admitting that you don't have a leg to stand on. You're robbing yourself of the opportunity to fairly validate or invalidate either side of the argument.

[Siara]

Well, when it's looking like those "in the know" have been perpetrating a hoax on the rest of us, I think it is foolish to look to them for valid answers.

WARNING: SPIRITUAL STUFF AHEAD

IamsSon- When you look at the bulk of international scientific information that's available, it suggests that we are drastically effecting our environment. You are a Christian. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"- sound familiar? According to your scripture, nature is God's creation. It is God's voice. Everything else is a drastic simplification of Infinity into the narrow realm of human eloquence.

Please explain why you are so ready to gamble with God's manifestation of Himself in physical reality. The guys at Exxon turning a big profit is more important than your descendants having access to the Deity's creation? You're willing to gamble because the guys at Exxon and God's message are so nearly equal in importance? I don't get it.

I don't have a specifically named religious dogma. I can't say, "I'm Christian" or "I'm Jewish", etc. But it seems to me that any spiritual person who is willing to gamble with nature to boost a political platform is full of ****.

[Raptor]

Well, let me put it this way, on the "other side of the fence" are mostly people working for institutions that have sold us that smoking was good for us, asbestos dust a lung spa and the ozone hole absolutely no problem (BTW, the people in New Zealand still love us for that) and that aspetame does nothing to your brain. Why should we believe anything they say... at all?

There's no epistemological discussion to be had here because we're not talking about any grand unknowns. We're talking about whether or not the explanations given for the quotes pulled from emails between scientists have enough weight behind them to satisfactorily account for what had been said. If they do, then we reach an impasse where more information is necessary before we can conclude whether or not foul play is evident. If not, then it's still up for debate.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Raptor

[questionmark]

There's no epistemological discussion to be had here because we're not talking about any grand unknowns. We're talking about whether or not the explanations given for the quotes pulled from emails between scientists have enough weight behind them to satisfactorily account for what had been said. If they do, then we reach an impasse where more information is necessary for us to reach a conclusion. If not, then it's still up for debate.

See my post two minutes after the OP...must be at the top.

If of all the e-mails they got their fingers at the above is the only evidence there is only one scandal here: That no authorities have yet opened an investigation to arrest the perpetrators. Stealing private mail is still a crime..except evidently in Iran.

[HAJiME]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone that doesn't believe in MMGW is trashing the planet. I've been an environmentalist since LONG before you were a glimmer in your momma's eyes, so get off your high horse.

If there's one thing this forum has taught me it is that age is no signifier of intelligence, knowledge, experience, compassion, understanding... The list goes on.

It is incredibly, ironically, childish to go to my profile to check my age and use that to enforce your argument.

I quite like sitting up here anyway. I can spot ignorance miles away!

If Iamson, or any denier of global warming, thinks that what it's causing us to stop and change about the way we as a species consume this planet, they'd have made a point of stating that in their posts - and more importantly, they'd have no issue with the "fraud"!

[Michelle]

If there's one thing this forum has taught me it is that age is no signifier of intelligence, knowledge, experience, compassion, understanding... The list goes on.

It is incredibly, ironically, childish to go to my profile to check my age and use that to enforce your argument.

I quite like sitting up here anyway. I can spot ignorance miles away!

Dear, this isn't the first post of yours I've read...I looked long ago.

[IamsSon]

WARNING: SPIRITUAL STUFF AHEAD

IamsSon- When you look at the bulk of international scientific information that's available, it suggests that we are drastically effecting our environment. You are a Christian. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"- sound familiar? According to your scripture, nature is God's creation. It is God's voice. Everything else is a drastic simplification of Infinity into the narrow realm of human eloquence.

Please explain why you are so ready to gamble with God's manifestation of Himself in physical reality. The guys at Exxon turning a big profit is more important than your descendants having access to the Deity's creation? You're willing to gamble because the guys at Exxon and God's message are so nearly equal in importance? I don't get it.

I don't have a specifically named religious dogma. I can't say, "I'm Christian" or "I'm Jewish", etc. But it seems to me that any spiritual person who is willing to gamble with nature to boost a political platform is full of ****.

Siara,

You have hit on the reason why I do believe in being environmentally conscious and in protecting the planet. I believe God charged us with doing so. However, I also believe that the Anthopogenic Global Warming "science" is a bunch of hoo hah intended to enrich a few people while also taking liberty away from the rest of us (just look at how much $$ Algore is making off this while he FLIES around the world "warning" all of us about the dangers).

I do not believe that disagreeing with a "scientific" idea makes me any less a Christian or any less environmentally conscious.

[IamsSon]

Correct. Also, my friends at Geophysical Research Letters, Nature, Science, and PNAS would, too.

Thanks for naming the rest of the shills, it will make it easier to decide who to examine critically.

OK, this is so stupid.

In case you are unaware, virtually every major blog in the world has its comments moderated.

You have got to be kidding yourself. Of course that is what is about. It is completely within their right to moderate their blog comments. Heck, our forum is moderated.

Additionally, if you were to head over to Real Climate, you would notice that they are pretty liberal with what they will accept. As long as you aren't being an ********, they will accept your comment.

Additionally, as I said, this is pointless: It is completely within their right to moderate their blog. Heck, don't you realize that McIntyre moderates HIS blog? Seriously, you don't have a point here.

Nice try. This is not about whether they can or should moderate their blog, but the fact that the email seems to indicate they are making sure the skeptics are not heard.

[IamsSon]

Hacking the climate change deception

Saturday November 21, 2009

Categories: Climate change I don't see how the astonishing climate change e-mail scandal is anything but a disaster for the global warming community. This thing really does make one doubt what one had accepted as scientifically true, because the consensus was reported as overwhelming. Excerpt:

And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

Wanna read all the files hacked out of the University of East Anglia's computer? Here ya go.

Karl Denninger has been reading them. Excerpt:

It gets better. Another message, this one allegedly from 2000:

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

Oh, so it's not about the planet getting warmer, but rather is a convenient means of advancing an agenda that has already been pre-determined?

That's chilling (no pun intended). Honestly, I don't know what to believe now about this stuff. I mean, seriously, read this:

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash." The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.

Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate scientists have dismissed those claims.

The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.

Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' ... as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.

Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.

So much for disinterested science, and just-the-facts. I'm not ready to say that man-made climate change is a hoax, but I'd say those hackers did us all a great service by lifting the veil on those nasty sh**s in labcoats.

UPDATE: I'm not saying that I no longer believe that climate change is occurring, and that mankind has a lot to do with this. I find it hard to believe that so much data have been faked. Still, I am saying that I'm not sure what to believe, because my faith in the integrity and the honesty of climate scientists has been shaken by this.

[Raptor]

I'm sure your buddies at RealClimate will agree you're winning.

Source

Oh, yeah, this is all about just making sure the "scientists" *cough* *cough* *political shills* *anti-science hacks* *cough* cough* don't get hate and nonsense spam.

BTW, I would never send spam or hate mail, but thanks for showing how you and your "scientist" buddies treat those who disagree with you.

Your partisanship is staggering! I'm honestly dumbfounded. How do you write what you write and rationally justify it to yourself?

[Wickian]

There really is no defending most of the comments in the released emails. To try and do so is the same as supporting their policies on censoring those who disagree.

For years it's been common knowledge that such practices went on, now there's actual proof.

[danielost]

why is it when those who believe in man made global warming are confronted they resort to name calling and junk posts.

[IamsSon]

Your partisanship is staggering! I'm honestly dumbfounded. How do you write what you write and rationally justify it to yourself?

Partisanship!? Give me a break! I don't know if you've actually read any of the emails, but unless climate scientists speak a totally different type of English, it is clear that these guys were behaving in some very unscientific ways.

[IamsSon]

WARNING: SPIRITUAL STUFF AHEAD

IamsSon- When you look at the bulk of international scientific information that's available, it suggests that we are drastically effecting our environment. You are a Christian. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"- sound familiar? According to your scripture, nature is God's creation. It is God's voice. Everything else is a drastic simplification of Infinity into the narrow realm of human eloquence.

Please explain why you are so ready to gamble with God's manifestation of Himself in physical reality. The guys at Exxon turning a big profit is more important than your descendants having access to the Deity's creation? You're willing to gamble because the guys at Exxon and God's message are so nearly equal in importance? I don't get it.

I don't have a specifically named religious dogma. I can't say, "I'm Christian" or "I'm Jewish", etc. But it seems to me that any spiritual person who is willing to gamble with nature to boost a political platform is full of ****.

Siara, I know I already responded once to your post, but today I found an article in which the author does a great job of stating why, although I am interested in protecting our planet's environment, I am so incensed by what these so-called scientists have been perpetrating:

Many in the climate change community have condemned what they call "skeptics," often to the point of declaring them de facto criminals and assigning them to the same category as Holocaust deniers. They tell us that "the science is settled" and that we should shut up. But every scientist worthy of the name should be a skeptic. Every theory should be subject to challenge on a scientific basis. Every claim of a model's validity should be accompanied by the complete model and data set that supposedly validated it, so that it can be replicated. That is how science works. It is how it advances. And when the science is supposedly "settled" and they refuse to do so, it's not unreasonable to wonder why.

Well, now we know.

In fact, when scientists become politicians but continue to pretend to be doing science, that is the real crime. The theory being promoted by these men was being used to justify government actions that would result in greatly diminished future economic growth of the most powerful economy on earth (and the rest of the world as well). It would make it more difficult and less affordable to address any real problems that might be caused in the future by a change in climate, whether due to human activity or other causes. It could impoverish millions in the future, with little actual change in adverse climate effects. And when such a theory has the potential to do so much unjustified harm, and it has a fraudulent basis, who are the real criminals against humanity?

Full Article

[Mattshark]

Partisanship!? Give me a break! I don't know if you've actually read any of the emails, but unless climate scientists speak a totally different type of English, it is clear that these guys were behaving in some very unscientific ways.

No, that is assumption based on uncontextualised e-mails.

Sorry Iams, you have completely disregarded science on this from so many different sources it is not even funny. This is very much partisanship from you.

[IamsSon]

No, that is assumption based on uncontextualised e-mails.

Sorry Iams, you have completely disregarded science on this from so many different sources it is not even funny. This is very much partisanship from you.

Oh, so there is a context in which saying you're planning to delete data rather than turning it over due to an FOI request is not a sign of malfeasance?

[Mattshark]

Oh, so there is a context in which saying you're planning to delete data rather than turning it over due to an FOI request is not a sign of malfeasance?

I'll give you SQL's response here

14. On "Deleting it as appropriate"

Hake's quote:

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil

And the real quote:

Also ignored Francis' comment about all the other series looking similar

to MBH.

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

Report:

Ah, a classic, obvious, blatant quote mine from the pathetic scum bag who is Tony Hake. When we look at the whole quote, it becomes obvious that Phil is talking about a comment on his blog, and not some mysterious, evil data.

15. On a "Freedom of Information Act"

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

Report:

What. Hake is actually serious.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the climax of Hake's stupidity.

Phil is joking. All of the CRU station data is available online.

Hake is unbelievably stupid.

Source:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/

Don't let facts get in the way though Iams and seriously educate yourself about evolution.