• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

S

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-MailsHackers 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."

Related StoriesRust Belt Residents Uneasy Over Climate Change Bill
U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy
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?"

....
Click to expand...

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

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.

Private doubts about whether the world really is 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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? 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?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Click to expand...

Even the climatologists making their living off AGW are admitting it's a fraud....to themselves, anyway.
 
Some of us have been screaming for over 20 years this was a total HOAX but the environmental movement has brain washed so many it's been hard to get a word in edge wise.

Recent protested against solar and wind generating facilities should have been a tip off, threat these groups are now in it for the money only or they wouldn't be against the very thing they once were fighting for. They found that if their early recommendations are used it puts them out of business, and that ends the cash flow to the folks that run the HOAX Shows.
 
Last edited:
Climate Change: NASA's Eyes on the Earth



r02s77.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yawn. Cherry picked hacked emails. Yet some of you are screaming big conspiracy without looking at the whole picture.

The following will explain it in context:

RealClimate: The CRU hack

<snip>
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.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.
 
Anybody have a link to the emails? My searches have come up dry
 
I think global warming is a natural process that happens every so often. But i think our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere is speeding this process up - and if you sceptics deny this much, then your no better than the religious bigots who still are convinced the world is flat, and any notion of it being circular is dismissed as a hoax and is nonsense -.-
 
It was just released in the last few weeks that it has cooled over the last 30 years.
The U.S. Army Research Office said last year that 86% of all Global warming was saused by the Sun.

Any real Global warming or cooling is natural cycles.

Mans effect id where the HOAX in centered and that is all about profit, taxes, and ultimately control.

Obama's Cap and Trade has very close ot ZERO benefits if it went on 100 years.

Much if not all of what Obama says is nothing but lies.

Want to see why Al Gore runs around lying his sizable ass off? He's about to be a billionaire because of the HOAX.
 
Councilman said:
It was just released in the last few weeks that it has cooled over the last 30 years.
The U.S. Army Research Office said last year that 86% of all Global warming was saused by the Sun.

Any real Global warming or cooling is natural cycles.

Mans effect id where the HOAX in centered and that is all about profit, taxes, and ultimately control.

Obama's Cap and Trade has very close ot ZERO benefits if it went on 100 years.

Much if not all of what Obama says is nothing but lies.

Want to see why Al Gore runs around lying his sizable ass off? He's about to be a billionaire because of the HOAX.
Click to expand...


So science is wrong and CO2 doesnt trap sun rays and its all just a big scam. Keep dreaming.
Global warming is a natural cycle - but our co2 aint helping.
 
Yes the ones you are listening to are wrong.

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age.
 
Councilman said:
Yes the ones you are listening to are wrong.

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
Click to expand...

No, the select minority who you are listening to are wrong. Im not going to buy this and expect to believe all anti and pro Al Gore scientists are wrong, aswell as schools and just about every other political/scientific institution aswell as educational. Open your eyes and see your view is in the minority and widely disputed amongst the scientists on and away from the political stage.

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age.
Click to expand...

I believe its a natural cycle but i also believe co2 is hurting this process.
 
kaya'08 said:
So science is wrong and CO2 doesnt trap sun rays and its all just a big scam. Keep dreaming.
Global warming is a natural cycle - but our co2 aint helping.
Click to expand...

Opps again...

temp.jpg
 
Middleground said:
Why the hate on for Al Gore, oops.... algore? He must really, really, really scare the right!
Click to expand...

He is a dumb ass hypocrite.... have you ever seen his house?... see what he consumes in power for it?

And yes, he and the other dumb ass hypocrites in our government scare me.
 
Crunch said:
He is a dumb ass hypocrite.... have you ever seen his house?... see what he consumes in power for it?

And yes, he and the other dumb ass hypocrites in our government scare me.
Click to expand...

Untrue. His house is mostly off the grid. Why do you choose to believe all the falsehoods out there?
 
Last edited:
Crunch said:
Opps again...

temp.jpg
Click to expand...

I went to the sources that graph uses, and they do not agree with that graphic. The CRU data seems straight-up incorrect. The MSU data (1) cherry picks one single MSU data set, that for the lower troposphere and (2) looks quite different if you look at the entire dataset rather than just the portion from 1998-2008

Source [CRU | Temperature Data]

cru.png


Source [NCDC | MSU Satellite Information]

uah.png
 
Gibberish said:
What is the oops? Your graph confirms exactly what Joe1991's graph says. That CO2 levels are around 390 and increasing.
Click to expand...

He doesn't know how to read the chart. Let him keep using it and ignoring what it says on the the left side. :rofl
 
over the last 40 years very few groups have suffered more credibility crashes than our environmentalist friends

i'm old enough to remember global cooling back in the 70's

Newsweek on the cooling world

an ice age was coming and we were all gonna starve

meanwhile, on earth, currently, copenhagen's accords are killed

hu did it

World leaders back delay to final climate deal | World | Reuters

over breakfast! in singapore! and right in front of our chummy CHIN in chief

how embarrassing

in washington, cap and trade is kaput

ask ms mccaskill

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125850693443052993.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

or, perhaps, you can inquire of impolite inhofe

Inhofe: Senate Will Not Pass Cap-and-Trade

either way, der spiegel yesterday reported "climatologists baffled by global warming time out"

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

there appears to be almost complete accord that the temp curve has crested

and that INCLUDES a team from nasa

LOL!
 
Last edited:
kaya'08 said:
I think global warming is a natural process that happens every so often. But i think our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere is speeding this process up - and if you sceptics deny this much, then your no better than the religious bigots who still are convinced the world is flat, and any notion of it being circular is dismissed as a hoax and is nonsense -.-
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the thread topic?
 
The Prof said:
over the last 40 years very few groups have suffered more credibility crashes than our environmentalist friends

i'm old enough to remember global cooling back in the 70's

Newsweek on the cooling world

an ice age was coming and we were all gonna starve

meanwhile, on earth, currently, copenhagen's accords are killed

hu did it

World leaders back delay to final climate deal | World | Reuters

over breakfast! in singapore! and right in front of our chummy CHIN in chief

how embarrassing

in washington, cap and trade is kaput

ask ms mccaskill

Senate to Put Off Climate Bill Until Spring - WSJ.com

or, perhaps, you can inquire of impolite inhofe

Inhofe: Senate Will Not Pass Cap-and-Trade

either way, der spiegel yesterday reported "climatologists baffled by global warming time out"

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

there appears to be almost complete accord that the temp curve has crested

and that INCLUDES a team from nasa

LOL!
Click to expand...

I too remember the flat over the coming ICE AGE and for the people who listen to Parawacko Radio they get to hear, the earth is heating up one day and getting coler the next.

What troubles me is there are actual legitimate environmental issues we could be addressing without all BS hype from the fringe environmental groups who are now just in it for the money as shown in the protests our the construction of SOLAR & WIND projects they were claiming were going to help just a few years ago. Now those same projects might hurt some heretofore unknown lizard of butterfly that might fly it's way into harm or some other BS.

Today the resistance comes because of the fear tactics that over inflate the issues and the politicians being in bed with the wackos while looking for a way to tax anything that comes along.

There are logical solutions to all of the issues and they don't require that we tax the living hell out of anyone, and jobs could be created in industries that are clean.

Hell I would love to have a car to drive like the Tesla and would guess most people would love one if they knew the performance statistics. They just cost too damn much right now.

The hysteria is the problem along with the need to control on some people's parts. Clear away the greed remove the fringe groups use just the little of the most uncommon commodity in Politics, that being common sense and the fixes could begin almost tomorrow. But the so called experts don't really want cures or we would see them.

A line in the old Movie attributed to the Toni Curtis character perfectly describes the way the environmental groups have come to think. This is; "In confusion there is profit", and he was so right.

If I thought it would do any good I'd go back to passing on solutions to those in power but they don't pay any attention to anyone but lobbyists who can funnel money either under the table or over it into campaign funds where it can be siphoned off.

So i say the best thing to do is just say not no but HELL NO to things like Cap and Trade that not going to help in 100 years and find a way to get some people in office who can think for then selves and work directly on the problems and stop throwing good money down the drain for BS solutions that don't begin to address the problems and only raise taxes to waste or redistribute as part of the Socialist/Marxist agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom