Page 1 of 2
#3
A few days late, sorry.

Also, that's not what it's about. It says that the data that didn't agree with the rest and wouldn't have made everything seem so obvious was repressed, not that global warming is just an outright lie.

And that's only the part about human influence, not natural climate change.
#4
they could have easily just made it up... the hackers i mean
sim simma

who got the keys to my beema
#5
Many threads on this.

It's actually been shown that these emails are not actually down to foul play. Doesn't change the fact either that the world is warming and the scientific consensus is that it's because of human activity.
#7
As I said before

"oh look, a bunch of E-mails taken out of context, that definitely trumps mountains of empirical evidence"

...Get back to me when you've got some legitimate science to talk. And by me I mean someone who gives a shit.

Quote by Craigo
They're legitimate.

They're entirely out of context.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#8
Quote by Craigo
Many threads on this.

It's actually been shown that these emails are not actually down to foul play. Doesn't change the fact either that the world is warming and the scientific consensus is that it's because of human activity.


Out of curiosity, you mind showing me proof?
#10
Quote by Ur all $h1t
They're entirely out of context.

And? It doesn't change the fact that they were not made up, which is what I was simply saying.

Sg, the link above will do. And don't use the word 'proof' like that.
#11
Why would they lie about it? To scare people? Into doing what?
My Gear

Fender Deluxe Players Stratocaster
Marshall DSL 50 with 1960A
#12
Quote by sglover34479
Out of curiosity, you mind showing me proof?

Proof of the scientific consensus?
The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


P_roof does not exist in the natural sciences, just evidence.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#13
Quote by sglover34479
Apparently a bunch of hackers have hacked into some emails and found some stuff that supposedly points to global warming being a fraud.

No one thinks Global Warming is a fraud. The earth has warmed in the past 150 years, and no one is denying that.

There has never been any evidence that this warming occurs because of human CO-2 emission though, The fact that most scientists and politicians present this as an absolute truth while there are distinct clues pointing in the other direction is somewhat dubious. The fact that these clues are hidden from the general public is simply outrageous. The problem is that these days, global warming is a billion-dollar industry. If it was proven man had nothing to do with global warming, and it is indeed a natural occurrance, this would cost a lot of people/companies a lot of money.

As far as I'm concerned, global warming is based on scare tactics, and reducing CO-2 emissions because something terrible might happen if you don't is no different from living your life according to the bible because you might go to hell if you don't.
Quote by Craigo
Many threads on this.

It's actually been shown that these emails are not actually down to foul play. Doesn't change the fact either that the world is warming and the scientific consensus is that it's because of human activity.


I hate to sound like a consparicy thinker, but it's impossible to get gouvernment funding for research that might point in other directions, for reasons stated above. Something that's only starting to occur is that retired scientists (not dependant on gouvernment funding) are publishing results showing we are probably indeed going through a natural temprature cycle.

Also, wikipedia =/= proof.
Last edited by Kenbeek at Dec 4, 2009,
#14
Quote by Craigo
Many threads on this.

It's actually been shown that these emails are not actually down to foul play. Doesn't change the fact either that the world is warming and the scientific consensus is that it's because of human activity.



1. This happened WEEKS ago, the mainstream media is only starting to cover this.

2. Many of the emails talk about ways to falsify the numbers and equations to make it look like it's warming.

3. The scientific consensus is NOT that global warming, or climate change, or whatever bullshit they are calling it now is caused by human activity, nor that it even exists.As with all things in nature, temperature goes through cycles. The earth warms and cools, and has forever, just look at the ice ages. In fact, the most reputable scientists, the one who use REAL numbers and science think that we are on the verge of another ice age.
Quote by Teh Traineez0rz
yeah was weird cause she liked us both but she loved him and for some reason she let me know beforehand.

i just wanted her poon and she wanted me to have her poon.

so i had myself some poon.
#15
Quote by Kenbeek
No one thinks Global Warming is a fraud. The earth has warmed in the past 150 years, and no one is denying that.

There has never been any evidence that this warming occurs because of human CO-2 emission though, The fact that most scientists and politicians present this as an absolute truth while there are distinct clues pointing in the other direction is somewhat dubious. The fact that these clues are hidden from the general public is simply outrageous. The problem is that these days, global warming is a billion-dollar industry. If it was proven man had nothing to do with global warming, and it is indeed a natural occurrance, this would cost a lot of people/companies a lot of money.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html#How_do_we_know_that_humans_are_the_major

Might as well start from there.
As far as I'm concerned, global warming is based on scare tactics, and reducing CO-2 emissions because something terrible might happen if you don't is no different from living your life according to the bible because you might go to hell if you don't.

Right.

Hypothetically, global warming is not real, and all the credible scientists of the world know it.

What benefit would Governments have in spending their own money restricting companies to do things? Or to spend great sums of money for international conferences to tackle the issue? So forth. Why would they be interested in scare tactics?
#16
Quote by Shirate
1. This happened WEEKS ago, the mainstream media is only starting to cover this.

2. Many of the emails talk about ways to falsify the numbers and equations to make it look like it's warming.

Give an example, but it actually doesn't at all. Not when taken in context.

3. The scientific consensus is NOT that global warming, or climate change, or whatever bullshit they are calling it now is caused by human activity, nor that it even exists.As with all things in nature, temperature goes through cycles. The earth warms and cools, and has forever, just look at the ice ages. In fact, the most reputable scientists, the one who use REAL numbers and science think that we are on the verge of another ice age.

Yes it is. The consensus of every single National Academy of Science in the industrialised world and every major scientific body that has issued a statement is that global warming is happening and is likely attributed to human activities. No organisation have issued a statement contradicting that, some have issued non-committal statements but that's it.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#17
Quote by Kenbeek
No one thinks Global Warming is a fraud. The earth has warmed in the past 150 years, and no one is denying that.

There has never been any evidence that this warming occurs because of human CO-2 emission though, The fact that most scientists and politicians present this as an absolute truth while there are distinct clues pointing in the other direction is somewhat dubious. The fact that these clues are hidden from the general public is simply outrageous. The problem is that these days, global warming is a billion-dollar industry. If it was proven man had nothing to do with global warming, and it is indeed a natural occurrance, this would cost a lot of people/companies a lot of money.

As far as I'm concerned, global warming is based on scare tactics, and reducing CO-2 emissions because something terrible might happen if you don't is no different from living your life according to the bible because you might go to hell if you don't.


I hate to sound like a consparicy thinker, but it's impossible to get gouvernment funding for research that might point in other directions, for reasons stated above.

Also, wikipedia =/= proof.


#18
Quote by Shirate
2. Many of the emails talk about ways to falsify the numbers and equations to make it look like it's warming.
Yeah, based on the use of the word "trick" once, referring to a clever piece of maths, not a misleading one.

Quote by Shirate
3. The scientific consensus is NOT that global warming, or climate change, or whatever bullshit they are calling it now is caused by human activity, nor that it even exists.As with all things in nature, temperature goes through cycles. The earth warms and cools, and has forever, just look at the ice ages. In fact, the most reputable scientists, the one who use REAL numbers and science think that we are on the verge of another ice age.
Because, funnily enough, it is believed ice ages are triggered by increased atmospheric CO2 and a period of GLOBAL WARMING.
#20
Quote by Kenbeek

I hate to sound like a consparicy thinker, but it's impossible to get gouvernment funding for research that might point in other directions, for reasons stated above. Something that's only starting to occur is that retired scientists (not dependant on gouvernment funding) are publishing results showing we are probably indeed going through a natural temprature cycle.

Untrue. Most scientific organisations do not depend on government funding for research. Even if they did it wouldn't matter because one does not set out to do research with the goal of confirming one side or the other, that's unscientific. And even if they did (which they don't) no amount of funding can make shoddy evidence pass peer review.

There is heaps of money there for someone who can "disprove" climate change, absolute mountains of the stuff.
Which is of course a better explanation for the actions of some retired scientists, who can now take the oil company's cheque as their reputation is no longer important to them. There's a reason they come out to the media rather than try to get peer reviewed articles published.

Also, wikipedia =/= proof.

A well cited wikipedia article is as good as most other internet sources, particularly for a summary of the positions of numerous organisations.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#21
Quote by Shirate
1. This happened WEEKS ago, the mainstream media is only starting to cover this.

...and?
2. Many of the emails talk about ways to falsify the numbers and equations to make it look like it's warming.

They were out of context. These sentiments raised in private are actually a matter of public record and have been completely misunderstood.

Stain gave a good link. Go click on it. That'll do for now.
3. The scientific consensus is NOT that global warming, or climate change, or whatever bullshit they are calling it now is caused by human activity, nor that it even exists

'kay.
Quote by It's rad what a quick wiki will do
This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions

Explanation?

As with all things in nature, temperature goes through cycles. The earth warms and cools, and has forever, just look at the ice ages. In fact, the most reputable scientists, the one who use REAL numbers and science think that we are on the verge of another ice age.

OMG really? I really have NERVERR heard of this!!

There's only one climatologist to my knowledge who is dissenting against global warming, and plenty of think tanks have not liked the way he has granted many global warming advocates' claims.
#22
Quote by freedoms_stain
Yeah, based on the use of the word "trick" once, referring to a clever piece of maths, not a misleading one.


Yep, allow me to clarify that actually.

The only thing that anyone talks about from the E-mails is this statement:
"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."

I've copied and pasted this from a poster on another forum who said it much more succinctly and cleverly than I am able to. I'm sure he would rather the information be spread around, so I will credit him: His profile

The email "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline" has nothing to do with "hiding evidence of global cooling." The email is referring to the tree ring divergence problem, a well-known and actively studied phenomenon where dendrochronological proxy reconstructions diverge from instrumental data starting at around 1950. In other words, studying the relative width of tree rings from very old trees can give reconstructions of the climate during those years, except this stops working for trees in Northern-hemisphere forests after 1950. There are many hypotheses as to why this occurred, but there is no definite answer yet. A good overview of the problem can be found here:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

Direct instrumental data clearly shows a warming trend since 1950, as well as other proxy reconstructions, however because of the divergence problem, tree ring proxies from the Northern hemisphere do not correlate with any of these. Therefore, when creating the chart of proxy compilations, tree ring data was only included up until 1960. The chart is here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


The lightest-blue line is the tree-ring proxy. Notice that it correlates quite well with all the other proxies, although it stops at 1960. If the omitted data was included, it would have shown a clearly juxtaposed decline. This is what "hide the decline" referred to.

If you refer to the above pdf, on page 3 they have a chart that shows the full proxy, where the decline can be seen. It also shows how the proxy diverges with instrumental temperature records. No data is being hidden from the public, it is readily available (it took me all of 2 minutes to find it).

Lastly, the "trick" from the email was referring to plotting instrumental data along with the proxy data. This is a very common practice to show that instrumental data correlates with proxy data. In the chart above, instrumental data is the solid black line, which as can be seen, follows the exact same pattern as the most recent proxy data.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#23
Quote by Kenbeek
Also, wikipedia =/= proof.


You know that article Paddy posted cites 100 sources? You realize that, don't you?

I always laugh heartily at ignoramuses who dismiss Wikipedia out of hand. Seeing as how Wikipedia is comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of accuracy (source).
#24
I hate to sound like a consparicy thinker, but it's impossible to get gouvernment funding for research that might point in other directions, for reasons stated above. Something that's only starting to occur is that retired scientists (not dependant on gouvernment funding) are publishing results showing we are probably indeed going through a natural temprature cycle.

Results this year show far, far worse predictions than we previously had.

Why would a Government fund something which is against its interest? Do you think the Government likes giving money to people to produce reasons to restrict economic growth which would of given them more money? They're not stupid either. They've got a whole range of independent advisers on their side who are non-afflicted with, say, people on the end for research grants.
Also, wikipedia =/= proof.

I've used wikipedia before due to their good citations to find Historical facts which have gone into essays I've written. I checked this up too. I've even done the same on forums. Found stuff on wiki and found the actual papers they came from and directly quoted from there. Bite me.
#25
Quote by Craigo

I stopped reading at this part
Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes we’ve seen. For a computer model to accurately project the future climate, scientists must first ensure that it accurately reproduces observed temperature changes. When the models include only recorded natural climate drivers—such as the sun’s intensity—the models cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming of the past half century. When human-induced climate drivers are also included in the models, then they accurately capture recent temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans. [4][5][6] When all the natural and human-induced climate drivers are compared to one another, the dramatic accumulation of carbon from human sources is by far the largest climate change driver over the past half century.


This is straight bullshit. The earth has warmed a staggering 0,6 degrees on average in the past century. This is nothing abnormal. Also, archeological sites have been exposed showing pre-inuit living of farming (around 4000 years ago) in places where temprature is now approximately 10 degrees too low to practice farming.

Carbon emission as a cause of global warming also doesn't explain why the earth has actually cooled down in the past 11 years, while CO-2 levels are still going up.


Quote by Craigo
Right.

Hypothetically, global warming is not real, and all the credible scientists of the world know it.

What benefit would Governments have in spending their own money restricting companies to do things? Or to spend great sums of money for international conferences to tackle the issue? So forth. Why would they be interested in scare tactics?


I think you misunderstand my point. Most scientist and politicians have (unrightfully) for years assumed this global warming hoax to be true, and handled accordingly. This has evolved to global warming being a major issue in pretty much every political or commercial campaign. Turn on your TV, and you'll see a carbon dioxide related commercial soon enough. No one consciously took the decision to fool the entire world at any point. It naturally evolved to a point where too many important people have an interest in not listening to counter arguments.
#26
Most of this debate is similar to talking to creationists. You get a lot of the same arguments based upon fundamental misunderstandings of how science works.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#27
Quote by Kenbeek



I think you misunderstand my point. Most scientist and politicians have (unrightfully) for years assumed this global warming hoax to be true, and handled accordingly. This has evolved to global warming being a major issue in pretty much every political or commercial campaign. Turn on your TV, and you'll see a carbon dioxide related commercial soon enough. No one consciously took the decision to fool the entire world at any point. It naturally evolved to a point where too many important people have an interest in not listening to counter arguments.

Scientists don't assume stuff, that's entirely contrary to the fundamental purpose of the scientific method. They thrive on shattering assumptions, most scientists live for that shit.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#30
Quote by Kenbeek


Carbon emission as a cause of global warming also doesn't explain why the earth has actually cooled down in the past 11 years, while CO-2 levels are still going up.

A basic understanding of how statistics work does. Look up the term "outlier".
1998 was an outlier. The general trend is distinctly upwards. Observe:


Lrn2Statistics


As I've said, same basic problems as we have with creationists.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#31
Quote by Ur all $h1t
A basic understanding of how statistics work does. Look up the term "outlier".
1998 was an outlier. The general trend is distinctly upwards. Observe:

*graph*

Lrn2Statistics


As I've said, same basic problems as we have with creationists.

perfect timing.
#32
Quote by Kenbeek
This is straight bullshit. The earth has warmed a staggering 0,6 degrees on average in the past century. This is nothing abnormal.

Right. Two things. Have you ever

a) heard of acceleration?
b) seen the predictions based on models which are consistently updated and checked like they mentioned?
Also, archeological sites have been exposed showing pre-inuit living of farming (around 4000 years ago) in places where temprature is now approximately 10 degrees too low to practice farming.

...and?
I think you misunderstand my point.

I didn't. I just said 'hey, here's a line of thought for you, care to respond?'
Most scientist and politicians have (unrightfully) for years assumed this global warming hoax to be true, and handled accordingly. This has evolved to global warming being a major issue in pretty much every political or commercial campaign. Turn on your TV, and you'll see a carbon dioxide related commercial soon enough. No one consciously took the decision to fool the entire world at any point. It naturally evolved to a point where too many important people have an interest in not listening to counter arguments.

Aye. Because the science is real.

Also, in America politicians took it more seriously in the 1980's than during the Bush figures. Go figure.
#34
Quote by Ur all $h1t
A basic understanding of how statistics work does. Look up the term "outlier".
1998 was an outlier. The general trend is distinctly upwards. Observe:

Lrn2Statistics

As I've said, same basic problems as we have with creationists.

To add onto this, notice how the line goes up and down. We're in a cooling period which was actually predicted because, surprise surprise, quantitative data on temperature is not a strict line. It should be going back up soon.
#35
Quote by Kenbeek
No one thinks Global Warming is a fraud. The earth has warmed in the past 150 years, and no one is denying that.

There has never been any evidence that this warming occurs because of human CO-2 emission though, The fact that most scientists and politicians present this as an absolute truth while there are distinct clues pointing in the other direction is somewhat dubious. The fact that these clues are hidden from the general public is simply outrageous. The problem is that these days, global warming is a billion-dollar industry. If it was proven man had nothing to do with global warming, and it is indeed a natural occurrance, this would cost a lot of people/companies a lot of money.

As far as I'm concerned, global warming is based on scare tactics, and reducing CO-2 emissions because something terrible might happen if you don't is no different from living your life according to the bible because you might go to hell if you don't.


I hate to sound like a consparicy thinker, but it's impossible to get gouvernment funding for research that might point in other directions, for reasons stated above. Something that's only starting to occur is that retired scientists (not dependant on gouvernment funding) are publishing results showing we are probably indeed going through a natural temprature cycle.

Also, wikipedia =/= proof.

Bingo!!! +1000
#36
Doesn't change the fact that we have a LIMITED amount of fossil fuels and an UNLIMITED need for it. Unless we change our ways yada yada yada you get the point, we're ****ed.
Last edited by Ssargentslayer at Dec 4, 2009,
#38
Quote by Craigo
Results this year show far, far worse predictions than we previously had.

Why would a Government fund something which is against its interest? Do you think the Government likes giving money to people to produce reasons to restrict economic growth which would of given them more money? They're not stupid either. They've got a whole range of independent advisers on their side who are non-afflicted with, say, people on the end for research grants.

Governments ****ing hate global warming, be they a left wing or right wing government. Right wing governments hate tax, and hate the idea of having to tax people in order to combat this problem. Left wingers obviously don't have the same problem with tax, but they'd much rather be spending it on education/social welfare/healthcare/whatever than having to use it on this stuff.
That's why everyone is so unbelievably ****ing slow to do anything about it.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#39
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Governments ****ing hate global warming, be they a left wing or right wing government. Right wing governments hate tax, and hate the idea of having to tax people in order to combat this problem. Left wingers obviously don't have the same problem with tax, but they'd much rather be spending it on education/social welfare/healthcare/whatever than having to use it on this stuff.
That's why everyone is so unbelievably ****ing slow to do anything about it.

Paddy's not up for being subtle today
#40
Quote by Ur all $h1t
A basic understanding of how statistics work does. Look up the term "outlier".
1998 was an outlier. The general trend is distinctly upwards. Observe:


Lrn2Statistics


As I've said, same basic problems as we have with creationists.

You do know Nasa have already admitted their data was incorrect?
Same problem we have with all sheep.

None of the top 10 warmest years of the past century have occurred in the last 11 years.
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

1934 1.26 0.43
1935 0.05 0.41
1936 0.20 0.43
1937 -0.15 0.34
1938 0.79 0.33
1939 0.81 0.40
1940 0.02 0.43
1941 0.50 0.30
1942 0.01 0.14
1943 0.15 0.13
1944 0.02 0.16
1945 -0.06 0.16
1946 0.65 0.11
1947 0.05 0.14
1948 -0.10 0.11
1949 0.16 -0.09
1950 -0.20 -0.05
1951 -0.38 0.14
1952 0.27 0.28
1953 0.86 0.31
1954 0.86 0.45
1955 -0.03 0.42
1956 0.29 0.25
1957 0.12 0.11
1958 0.04 0.07
1959 0.15 0.01
1960 -0.24 -0.02
1961 -0.04 0.00
1962 -0.02 -0.05
1963 0.17 -0.02
1964 -0.11 -0.06
1965 -0.11 -0.07
1966 -0.22 -0.17
1967 -0.09 -0.19
1968 -0.31 -0.19
1969 -0.20 -0.17
1970 -0.12 -0.21
1971 -0.11 -0.10
1972 -0.30 -0.02
1973 0.22 -0.04
1974 0.19 -0.07
1975 -0.21 0.06
1976 -0.26 -0.08
1977 0.38 -0.23
1978 -0.48 -0.14
1979 -0.57 0.05
1980 0.25 -0.09
1981 0.65 0.00
1982 -0.32 0.11
1983 -0.03 -0.01
1984 0.01 0.01
1985 -0.38 0.22
1986 0.75 0.30
1987 0.77 0.28
1988 0.35 0.53
1989 -0.11 0.52
1990 0.89 0.43
1991 0.68 0.28
1992 0.34 0.41
1993 -0.38 0.32
1994 0.53 0.17
1995 0.42 0.13
1996 -0.04 0.46
1997 0.12 0.57
1998 1.29 0.62
1999 1.05 0.82
2000 0.70 0.93
2001 0.91 0.81
2002 0.68 0.72
2003 0.69 0.76
2004 0.61 0.84
2005 0.92 0.88
2006 1.29 0.76
2007 0.88 *

And if that isn't enough, the 2006 entry was also found to be incorrect I believe.
Page 1 of 2