• Hacker releases ton of confidential e-mails & data from top AWG scientists.
    17 replies, posted
Sauce - [url]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/[/url] [quote] When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause. Here are a few tasters. [B] Manipulation of evidence:[/B] 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. [B]Suppression of evidence:[/B] 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 criticizing 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?” “[B]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.”[/B]“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 !”[/quote] Interesting, only time will tell if these e-mails are legit. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised. I think that if global warming is real, it isn't nearly as big a deal as these guys try to push it to be, and it might just be a natural cycle of the earth, considering we haven't been around long enough to say otherwise, and we lack the proper technology to get conclusive evidence.
Was posted a couple of days ago.
Also, the source doesn't seem to be very objective.
Meh I don't check the news section often enough. My bad.
I support anyone faking global warming data if it results in renewable energy sources being used and TNC's being more environmentally friendly.
[QUOTE=ijyt;18564461]I support anyone faking global warming data if it results in renewable energy sources being used and TNC's being more environmentally friendly.[/QUOTE] This is how I feel too. Don't care if climate change is an issue or not, just start focusing on renewable energy sources.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;18564637]This is how I feel too. Don't care if climate change is an issue or not, just start focusing on renewable energy sources.[/QUOTE] That doesn't mean taking over the economy. You see, most of the ways to prop up renewable energy involves killing jobs and essentially reversing all of the built up "inertia" behind using coal. Why doesn't anyone realize that coal may stick around for a while. Researching carbon sequestration, etc. would end up being less expensive and would yield results. Then, perhaps, we'd have fusion and wind mills would have been a waste of time and the energy used to build them.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;18564694]That doesn't mean taking over the economy. You see, most of the ways to prop up renewable energy involves killing jobs and essentially reversing all of the built up "inertia" behind using coal. Why doesn't anyone realize that coal may stick around for a while. Researching carbon sequestration, etc. would end up being less expensive and would yield results. Then, perhaps, we'd have fusion and wind mills would have been a waste of time and the energy used to build them.[/QUOTE] But it also creates jobs for people building and maintaining renewable plants.
[QUOTE=jalit;18564723]But it also creates jobs for people building and maintaining renewable plants.[/QUOTE] Yea but it also creates faux taxes and restrictions.
Why isn't this bigger news? CNN/BBC needs to get on this shit.
[QUOTE=jalit;18564723]But it also creates jobs for people building and maintaining renewable plants.[/QUOTE] That's a complete violation of freedom. [editline]01:22PM[/editline] [QUOTE=breakyourfac;18564807]Why isn't this bigger news? CNN/BBC needs to get on this shit.[/QUOTE] Why? Because of the money. The scientists go for it and so do the news networks.
[QUOTE=breakyourfac;18564807]Why isn't this bigger news? CNN/BBC needs to get on this shit.[/QUOTE] CNN did. [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/[/url]
[QUOTE=Wii60;18564833]CNN did. [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/[/url][/QUOTE] In any case, they're certainly left-leaning. [img]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/WORLD/europe/11/25/green.climate.cnn.youtube/tzvids.cnn.youtube.jpg[/img] ^From the front page.
oh no they are raising news on both sides that must mean they are BIASED.
This can only be good I guess. The exaggerations, I mean.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;18564820]That's a complete violation of freedom.[/QUOTE] what
Good.
[QUOTE=snuwoods;18564886]In any case, they're certainly left-leaning. [img]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/WORLD/europe/11/25/green.climate.cnn.youtube/tzvids.cnn.youtube.jpg[/img] ^From the front page.[/QUOTE] No, I think it's more that you're solidly right wing so from your perspective it's left.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.