Climate change

[Joensuu]

Having read through quite a few of these hacked emails I haven't yet seen anything unexpected. Seems like a group of frustrated scientists who are letting off a bit of steam in private emails. Don't blame them at all, especially given the politically motivated non-science they have to endlessly unpick.

 

Mind you, if all you 'non-science' brigade are right, and the whole human caused climate change theory has been manufactured by governments, you'd have to give it up to the governments; when would they have ever shown such remarkable coheirent efficency? Blimey, they can't even keep the lid on their own expenses, so how on earth have they managed so successfully to manipulate virtually every study into the climate in the past few decades?

 

Honestly, you might just be able to fake a moon landing, fabricate an assasination, perhaps even deceive a nation into thinking some 'planes' hit some towers, but manipulating the output of almost every environmental scientist in almost every country over such an extended period of time, why this must surely be the greatest cover up ever.

 

Anyone against established science is either a certified loony or has a political agenda.

[Verbal]

LOL

So you have no idea who Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen, etc are? and the influence these peeps and their institutions have had on the IPCC and certain Governments around the world ?

 

Not to mention being 'go to' places for the likes of the BBC etc

 

And all this time you've tried really hard to give the impression you had some idea of what you were talking about and now you go and let yourself down just as the final death nail has been driven into AGW...You may have fooled some, but i had you sussed from the start.

 

Now you have a little time to go and google them and pretend you knew all along

 

 

Climategate lol...going to be the end of the world for some

 

It just goes to show you can't be too careful.

[View From The Top]

This thread is proof, if it were ever needed, that the right wing, almost fascist loons, are totally and utterly gaga.

[Verbal]

You know, I'd really like to believe that climate change was a myth, I really would. The problem is that the deniers are such a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth weirdos, fantasists, narcissistic attention-seekers, paranoid survivalists and politicians corrupted by greed and oil money that it makes it a tad difficult.

 

If only there was a genuine, balanced disagreement among respected, disinterested scientists, then perhaps this would be a real debate. But it isn't - there's a broad consensus about the fundamentals, and a few leaked private emails from a group of scientists hounded by said oddities isn't going to change that.

 

Of course, expect the paranoids to be out in force after this. But I'll be having fun just watching them work themselves into an awful screech about a global conspiracy bought into by the 'sheople' (© Charlie Brooker) and from which the foamers - and they alone - stand in Olympian and (in their eyes only) magnificent disdain.

[aintforever]

LOL

So you have no idea who Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen, etc are? and the influence these peeps and their institutions have had on the IPCC and certain Governments around the world ?

 

Not to mention being 'go to' places for the likes of the BBC etc

 

And all this time you've tried really hard to give the impression you had some idea of what you were talking about and now you go and let yourself down just as the final death nail has been driven into AGW...You may have fooled some, but i had you sussed from the start.

 

Now you have a little time to go and google them and pretend you knew all along

 

 

Climategate lol...going to be the end of the world for some

 

It's all just a storm in a tea cup, these skeptics have got hold of OVER 10 YEARS worth of emails and all they can come up with is a couple of scientists making a joke about someone who's died and a bit of selective statistics. Without seeing the full emails in context it is impossible to draw conclusions from them except that a handfull of scientists have been a bit unprofessional in their personal emails.

 

When you consider what they are up against, like some of the graphs you've posted on here, that look like they've been done in Coral Draw by some redneck on an oil rig in Texas, you can't blame them for massaging the figures for certain uses to get a point across to some Sun readers.

 

If there was some massive, worldwide conspiracy like you suggest any hackers would have unearthed a hell of alot more than they did. It really is nothing.

[badgerx16]

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the man made climate change hoax are inextricably linked and by the very fact you are so completely hoodwinked you are a frontline footsoldier for the 10th crusade. This is a war without weapons, but a war none the less. It's a masterstroke by the ruling elite to employ the left winger eco warrior types like they have. .

Better call for Mulder & Sculley, this is way too deep for us sheep

 

For anybody doubting MMCC, or AGW, or whichever other 'conspiracy', Dune is looking to shoot down, just sit down for a few seconds and inwardly digest this quote. Once you have done that ask yourselves this one teensy weensy question, "If I don't support the MMCC theory, do I honestly believe this alternative proposition ?"

 

I presume it was all thought up by the Roswell alien, just after he acted as the second shooter in Dallas (1963), and after he rigged the fake moon landing photos ? This ( above ) has to be the ULTIMATE conspiracy theory, and to be honest, I genuinely feel sorry for anybody who buys into it.

 

Baaaaa!

Edited 21 November, 2009 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

St G & Dune will no doubt dismiss this as predictable panic response 'cover up' by the scientists who have been 'outed' as frauds ;

 

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/

 

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/

 

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/climate-deniers-hoax-themselves-again/

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Well, well, well, well

Would ya believe it, the UEA's Hadley Climate Research Centre was either hacked last night, or an insider with a concience had had enough.....

 

61mb of emails and data have been put into the public domain via a Russian web site....They did it because "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.....We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents"

 

This is explosive, its massive and its killed the current 'Man Made' Global Warming projections stone dead overnite...This thing involves many of the major "warming" players, we're not talking bit part hobyist's here and the truth is finaly out....The lies, the deception, the plans to indoctrinate UK Citizens...The politics behind the movement, the plans put in place to silence skeptical scientists, the lot...Hell, in one email a prominant "alarmist" admits his departments models are wrong and Steve McIntyre (a leading sceptic) was right, he then goes on to discuss options to 'cover up' the errors!

 

There's even long threads of head scratching and and asking “Where is the warming?” With a lot of peeps "deeplyconcerned" about the lack of observed warming......There's even one that seems to admit they got the Korttajarvi Finnish temperature proxies the wrong way round!

 

Their figures have not been making any sense for years now and now we know why...... I've been telling peeps for years, they're gunna look stupid if they keep falling for the scam and a scam it is, I can now add ..FACT!

 

 

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/11/hadley-hacked.html

 

There's a document by Hadley's Professor Phil Jones which shows that he was so concerned by Freedom Of Information

 

requests for raw data that he was contemplating ways to remove key information and reconstruct the data to make it fit

 

the preferred conclusions.

There's an email from American climate scientist Tom Wigley advising Professor Jones how to manipulate some data to

 

emphasise warming trends.

There's an email from Jones telling his colleagues to delete incriminatory emails.

There's another from Jones in which he tells a colleague that he's used the same "trick" as Michael Mann (Mr Hockey

 

Stick) "to hide the decline", and in yet another he calls the reported death of a climate sceptic "cheering news".

There's an email from Mann himself promising senior Hadley staff that they can use the RealClimate website to post

 

articles and he will ensure the censorship of any comments from sceptics challenging what they've written.

There's an email from senior IPCC scientist Kevin Trenberth in which he asks, "Where the heck is global warming?…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."

There's an email in which Hadley staff promise to blackball scientists from the IPCC report whose work doesn't conform

 

to their alarmist predictions: "keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

 

"

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-

 

released/#more-12937

 

"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."

 

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf

 

"The Internet is on fire this morning with confirmation

computers at one of the world’s leading climate

research centres were hacked, and the information

released on the internet.

A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160

megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents,

has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the

University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit,

Dr Phil Jones."

 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

 

"So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists

 

pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of

 

the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly

 

illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private

 

admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be

 

used to shout down sceptics. "

 

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/europe/science/top-climate-change-body-hit-by-hackers-$1341718.htm

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/

 

"At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited,

 

with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these

 

involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case,

 

peer review failed to pick up the errors."

 

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/11/uea-climate-research-unit-emails-hacked/

 

 

Thats just a few links..just google "hadley hacked" or "University of East Anglia hacked" for more...Its like a growing

 

rash all over the Internet

 

Now the Main Stream Media and the politicians will now ...They are going to have to take the other

 

side of the story into account from here on in........This can't be put back in the

 

bottle

 

In the words of Senator Inhofe on the floor of the US Senate on Wednesday.....

 

"I also said in Milan that the science is not settled. That was an unpopular view back then. But today, since Al

 

Gore's science fiction movie, more and more scientists, reporters, and politicians are questioning global warming

 

alarmism. I proudly declare 2009 as the "Year of the Skeptic"-the year in which scientists who question the so-called

 

global warming consensus are being heard."

 

 

 

BTW...let me take this opportunity to extended my sincere sympathy to anyone who maybe suffering the horrendous flooding

 

in Northen parts of the UK at the moment....My heart goes out to y'all.

 

I find it ironic that you extend sympathies to them when you are trying to deny the cause of the problem; man made global warming.

 

It's as if the man in charge of Chernoble had said: "Sorry we caused all this, but we're not sorry for using a Nuclear reactor".

[Saint George]

Man i love the smell of Napalmed AGW theories in the morning lol

 

I see there are one or two sheep still gazing tho

 

It's a beautifull day

[badgerx16]

Man i love the smell of Napalmed AGW theories in the morning lol

 

I see there are one or two sheep still gazing tho

 

It's a beautifull day

 

Stop wetting yourself, and go back to playing with Bo, Luke, Daisy, and Boss Hogg. ( Plus, please pay better attention to your spelling and grammar ).

 

A group of ( probably Russian ) hackers break into a University computer, ( Note: NOT the Hadley Research Centre ), and leak some raw data and out-of-context e-mails to the Flat Earth Society such that it causes them to go all orgasmic and say the MMCC/AGW conspiracy is blown wide open, ( and as a consequence Dune expects us to accept his fairy story, posted earlier, must therefore be fact ! ). This then goes viral across a number of nay-sayer blogs and misinformation websites, many of which are funded by vested interest groups and companies such as EXXON ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding ), which latch onto two or three key words spread across the whole collection of data, such as the mention of the statistical 'trick', and this then PROVES that climate scientists are all the spawn of Satan, and part of a great Judao-Bolshevik conspiracy to tax us all back to the Stone Age.

 

Please remember that this is not the only institution involved in climate research, there are hundreds spread all around the world, even the USA, and the majority of scientific opinion is that MMCC/AGW is a fact - unless, of course, each and every scientist, and each and every government that signs up to the protocols, is 'IN' on the hoax.

 

Slowly, but surely the truth will once again be asserted;

 

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/20/hacked-hadley-emails-hottest-decade-on-record-and-the-oceans-planet-keep-warming/

 

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/21/hacked-emails-ncar-kevin-trenberth/

 

The best quote I've seen so far : “Evidently due to this e-mail conspiracy, Arctic sea ice is at historically low levels, Australia is on fire, the northern United Kingdom is underwater, and the world’s glaciers are disappearing. Oh yeah, and it’s the hottest decade in history”

 

The only things that this proves are (1) the IT security at UEA is inadequate, and (2) life-long academics are incapable of 'housekeeping' their inboxes.

[Saint George]

lol, i love the way you keep linking to reports that have been compiled from falsified data...You clearly have no idea as to just how significant and influential the peeps involved in those emails are, or should i say 'were' lol in the big picture...Do you have any idea where the majority of the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" document came from? Yup, the most influencial International Government advisory document was put together on the back of manipulated and falsified data....

 

The fact that your not shocked and appalled at the level of deception tells me everything i need to know...

 

For those who haven't had the the time or desire to read the emails ...here's a quick summary http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

 

heh, even the climate journo from the New York Times was in their little gang

 

 

when is it going to sink in with you that you were conned?

[Saint George]

Anyone wanting to read the 'Climategate' emails for themselves can find them all here in 'Glorious Technicolor' http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

 

Of course, there will no doubt be some peeps who will just want to pretend they don't exist

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Anyone wanting to read the 'Climategate' emails for themselves can find them all here in 'Glorious Technicolor' http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

 

Of course, there will no doubt be some peeps who will just want to pretend they don't exist

 

He openly admits that he has gleamed his 'information' from forums and blogs.

 

You are a complete and utter ****ing scummy little **** stain with no evidence from credible sources. THIS ISN'T CREDIBLE, it is from some random website and this guy could easily have edited these emails. If you want to really prove that you are right, (when you're obviously ****ing not) then show me evidence from the MET office or the American equivalent. How about the British Antartic Survey?

 

Seeing as you live in Louisiana, you are a complete and utter ****ing moron considering the floods/storms they have had in recent years.

 

Also, one more thing, you are English: WILL YOU STOP WITH THESE ****ING ANNOYING AMERICANISMS!!!

 

***t!

Edited 22 November, 2009 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[badgerx16]

The fact that your not shocked and appalled at the level of deception tells me everything i need to know...

.....

when is it going to sink in with you that you were conned?

 

When is it going to sink in with YOU that I don't give a FLYING F%C£ for your opinion. You are a delusional, misguided, flat-earther, who still won't accept that there may be, just may be, some truth in this whole theory, and will still be parroting your phony "y'all"s, and "have a nice day"s when the midwest is doing an impression of the Sahara and your current abode is a coral reef.

 

This is all reminiscent of the tobacco companies getting more and more abusive and desperate as the mountain of evidence continued to grow against them. The 'anti's are just getting more and more vociferous and vindictive as they realise they are not going to win.

 

Leave me to the truth, the science, and the evidence, and you can go and tuck yourself up with Dune and your collective daydreams. ( Mind you, I am starting to think you are actually one and the same 'peep' ). I wouldn't trust you to tell me the sky was blue and the sun was shining.

 

Y'ALL have a nice life !!! And maybe one day you will realise and accept that some people will, quite reasonably, disagree with you, and that this is a good thing.

Edited 22 November, 2009 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

Of course, there will no doubt be some peeps who will just want to pretend they don't exist

As both the Hadley Centre and the UEA have admitted there is no doubt that most, if not all, of the e-mails are genuine, ( they simply haven't had time to check them all yet ), why would anybody wish to deny this ? As for the 'phony' database, this is composed mostly of publicly available data from various sources around the globe, so nothing 'secret' there. In fact one of the best arguments against your 'conspiracy' is just that, this data is openly available, as are the mathematical models used to analyse it, to anybody who wants to analyse them, as they are open source programs, and despite this the 'anti's have failed to disprove the main strand of MMGW/AGW.

 

I suppose this is all part of the hoax ?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091117.html (17 November 2009 )

"

Latest research has shown that emissions of CO2 will need to be reduced close to zero by the end of this century if a rise in the mean global temperature beyond 2 °C is to be avoided. A temperature rise of no more than 2 °C is widely acknowledged as the ‘safe’ level to avoid dangerous climate change.

This finding follows the development of a new climate mitigation scenario constructed using the same principles that will be adopted by the next IPCC assessment review using concentrations of greenhouse gases and other forcings as a starting point. Modellers have then been able to establish what level of emissions would need to be achieved so as to restrict global temperature rise.

This research, revealed at ‘ENSEMBLES – A changing climate in Europe’ symposium at the Met Office in Exeter, is the culmination of five years of research from 66 institutes across Europe, led by the Met Office Hadley Centre and funded by the European Commission.

John Mitchell, Director of Climate Science at the Met Office and ENSEMBLES co-ordinator, said: “This latest research emphasises the necessity to make drastic cuts in emissions as quickly and as soon as possible if we are to avoid dangerous climate change and highlights the importance of the negotiations that will take place in Copenhagen in December.”

Dan Norris, Minister for Rural Affairs and Environment, said: “The revolutionary UK Climate Projections 2009 that we launched last summer, based on Met Office science, showed that not only do we need to tackle the causes of climate change but also that we must deal with the consequences. I’m delighted that the Met Office is hosting this symposium. It reinforces the leadership role that the UK and other member states are playing in international climate science and policy. Just as importantly, it’s a chance to take stock — to discuss the science that has been developed, advances made, and to look at the priorities and the next set of questions we need to address.”

Other findings from the ENSEMBLES research program include:

 

• An ensemble prediction system giving the first probabilistic climate projections of temperature and rainfall changes fro Europe this century;
  
• An assessment of the impact of climate change on a range of sectors including agriculture, health, energy, water resources and insurance relevant to decisions being made today;
  
• A clearer picture of the physical, chemical, biological and human-related feedbacks in the climate system and how to represent them in models that will increase certainty in climate predictions;
  
• The development of the first high resolution climate observation datasets for Europe that can be used to validate ensemble predictions."
  

Edited 22 November, 2009 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

OK George, here is your opportunity

 

Going back to post #199, the following is extracted from Maggie T's 1989 speech to the UN, ( which I think puts it well before the hacked data set was established ). Now as we all know, she wasn't exactly enamoured of the 'loony lefties, 'tree-huggers', or other cranks ( as you would no doubt put it ). But on that basis, especially now you claim the 'hoax' is blown wide open, what exactly was her motivation and intent ? Do you think she was deliberately lying and presenting what she knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, were falsehoods and concocted data ? Or do you think she believed and, as a trained scientist, understood the basis on which she was building her argument ?

 

Come on, shoot her down. after all, we all know how strongly she felt about centralist control and taxation, ( isn't the ability to raise additional taxation one of the justifications for the 'con' ? )

 

"What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. "

 

"We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.

At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.[fo 3]

The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones. "

 

"Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: • The land they cultivate ever more intensively; • The forests they cut down and burn; • The mountain sides they lay bare; • The fossil fuels they burn; • The rivers and the seas they pollute.

The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. "

 

"The negotiation of some of these protocols will undoubtedly be difficult. And no issue will be more contentious than the need to control emissions of carbon dioxide, the major contributor—apart from water vapour—to the greenhouse effect. "

Edited 22 November, 2009 by badgerx16

[Mao Cap]

Maggie is a commie, Maggie is a commie, lala la la, lala la la...

[Joensuu]

This St George character has an immature posting style. His idea of a 'debate' involves posting something inaccurate and controversial (supported by some 'non-science' links of course); then when disproved and argued into a corner, he finds a different line of cranky rubbish to post instead. I can only assume that this is his way of accepting defeat on each attempted line of argument?

Normally such trolling is best ignored. However in this case the subject is too important to allow such mis-information to be posted unchallenged.

[badgerx16]

For anybody interested in understanding what the fuss is about, there is quite a good discussion, though lengthy, going on here ;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-19/#comment-143420

 

And whilst St G will dismiss the website as part of the con, the discussion thread actually has proponents of both sides putting their points of view with regard to the content of the e-mails in question, and surprisingly no 'slagging off'.

 

Please feel free to make up your own minds, I will neither call you 'sheeple' nor 'denialists', ( that's left for our 'special' friend ), it's a free choice.

Edited 22 November, 2009 by badgerx16

[Saint George]

For anybody interested in understanding what the fuss is about, there is quite a good discussion, though lengthy, going on here ;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-19/#comment-143420

 

And whilst St G will dismiss the website as part of the con, the discussion thread actually has proponents of both sides putting their points of view with regard to the content of the e-mails in question, and surprisingly no 'slagging off'.

 

Please feel free to make up your own minds, I will neither call you 'sheeple' nor 'denialists', ( that's left for our 'special' friend ), it's a free choice.

 

LOL..this gets better by the minute...out of the hundreds of places that are discussing 'Climategate' at the moment, you suggest peeps go to 'Realclimate' for a good 'ole honest discussion...I wonder why?

 

anything to do with the fact its run by no other than Michael Mann?...the very same Michael Mann of hockey stick infame?...and who said this in one of the leaked emails (RC is his reference to his website RealClimte)

 

From: "Michael E. Mann"

To: Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa

Subject: update

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

Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Cc: Gavin Schmidt

 

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

 

Oh dear!

[Joensuu]

Hmm, scandal indeed St George. How dare the scientists at Real Climate attempt to ensure that the comments sections are free from 'non-science' rubbish. I'm sure you'll have noticed that RC comments include plenty of decenting voices (perhaps the editorial policy is primarily to reduce repetition, swearing, and blantantly nonsence posts?). How shocking!

 

Not sure why you describe Mann as infamous, seen as his claims have stood up to rigourous right-wing investigation (ie the Republicans and fossil fuel industry nit-picked the 'hockey stick', and what they found altered nothing about the shape of the historical climate record... 'infamous' indeed!

[badgerx16]

LOL..this gets better by the minute...out of the hundreds of places that are discussing 'Climategate' at the moment, you suggest peeps go to 'Realclimate' for a good 'ole honest discussion...I wonder why?

 

Did you go and have a look ? No ? Well that explains a lot, because if you did you would have seen, at the last count 19 pages, of posts from BOTH sides of the debate; the 'anti's putting up their claims, with the 'evidence' they have sourced from the hack, and the 'pro's arguing their rebuttal. All being reasonably moderated, and with both sides making some good points.

 

But we can't let honesty get in the way of your bogus agenda, can we ?

 

And while we are at it, I am still waiting for your answer to the Margaret Thatcher question. I hope the delay means it will be REALLY good and worth waiting for.

Edited 23 November, 2009 by badgerx16

[badgerx16]

 

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.

 

All this means is that they will extra vigilant not to be seen to be against the 'anti's, so that the discussion is open and fair, and the moderation is impartial.

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.

 

Or "Given the ferocity, animosity, and unreasonableness of the opposition, we may buy ourselves some time to consider our replies to some of their posts so as to ensure we don't get caught up in their bear-pit, as they will jump on anything that might be deemed a slip, no matter how insignificant".

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...

Which probably translates as "we will try to ensure that the moderate majority, who may wish to partake in an informed and balanced debate, are not swamped by trolls and flamers who know that they cannot win when considering facts and science".

[Verbal]

St George does the best impression of King Canute I've seen in ages. Very funny - although I strongly suspect he's Scooby MkII, and adopting the 'persona' of a noodlebrain sent round the bend by an incurable internet addiction to conspiracy theories, in which science is really an international Masonic cult out to hoodwink everyone to achieve its own Smersh-like aims.

 

Good luck with your Thatcher question, badger. I suspect you won't get an answer - or if you do, it'll be that she submitted to the cult.

[Joensuu]

Here's Gavin Schmit's take on Real Climate's editorial policy:

 

Still screening out the people who find it interesting to wish various nasty diseases upon us, encourage us not to breathe anymore, or whose fantasies regarding prison life reveal a little more information about them than I'd ever want to know. - gavin

 

St George, do you still think that Real Climate shouldn't be moderated?

[Minty]

George, look back at all my comments on these threads and previous. Initially

I argued for a precautionary principle, because despite all the science, no one can accurately predict what will happen. But you continued to denounce that, and have never had any respect for anyone who dares disagree with you.

 

I said then, and I say now, you might be right... Maybe man made climate change is non-existant or minimal, but we cannot know for certain, so surely that, combined with the continuing depletion of natural resources and reduction of animal species due to changing habitats and climates, should lead any supposedly intelligent race to moderate their impact on the planet that supports them, to maximise it's ability to do so for future generations.

 

As I say, I might be wrong and I am more than willing to accept that. How can you be so arrogantly certain that you aren't?

 

It seems Hypo was right... George conveniently ignored this. Probably because he can't find a web page with pages of graphs and stats to answer it with.

[badgerx16]

Here's Gavin Schmit's take on Real Climate's editorial policy:

 

Still screening out the people who find it interesting to wish various nasty diseases upon us, encourage us not to breathe anymore, or whose fantasies regarding prison life reveal a little more information about them than I'd ever want to know. - gavin

 

St George, do you still think that Real Climate shouldn't be moderated?[/Quote]

 

It would seem that St G is actually posting there as well :cool:

[dune]

To understand the future you need to understand the past, but the lefties have their heads so far up arses that they don't even consider the FACT that the worlds climate changes naturally and has done so since the dawm of time.

 

In recent years we've had a warm spell in the middle ages (when many of the cathedrals were built) and a mini ice age in the 18th century (when the Thames froze over in London). So we've gone from a warm period to a cold period in 400 years - in geological terms this is the blink of an eye. And if you take the current warm period into account that's 3 swings in 600 years.

 

Global warming and global cooling is a fact of nature. Man has no influence on it whatsoever.

[bungle]

To understand the future you need to understand the past, but the lefties have their heads so far up arses that they don't even consider the FACT that the worlds climate changes naturally and has done so since the dawm of time.

 

In recent years we've had a warm spell in the middle ages (when many of the cathedrals were built) and a mini ice age in the 18th century (when the Thames froze over in London). So we've gone from a warm period to a cold period in 400 years - in geological terms this is the blink of an eye. And if you take the current warm period into account that's 3 swings in 600 years.

 

Global warming and global cooling is a fact of nature. Man has no influence on it whatsoever.

 

lolism.

[Joensuu]

To understand the future you need to understand the past, but the lefties have their heads so far up arses that...

'lefties'? Please keep your own politics out of science. As a liberal I couldn't give a damn what either 'left' or 'right' have to say - I'd rather deal in rational science.

they don't even consider the FACT that the worlds climate changes naturally and has done so since the dawm of time.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist who disputes this! [straw man alert?]

In recent years we've had a warm spell in the middle ages (when many of the cathedrals were built) and a mini ice age in the 18th century (when the Thames froze over in London). So we've gone from a warm period to a cold period in 400 years - in geological terms this is the blink of an eye. And if you take the current warm period into account that's 3 swings in 600 years.

Agreed. The natural climate has indeed varied roughly in the way you point out. However these natural variations weren't as extreme, or as rapid as the current observed change in global mean temperature.

Global warming and global cooling is a fact of nature.

Yup. That's a prerequisite to understanding what's going on... but...

Man has no influence on it whatsoever.

.... where did that leap of logic come from? That's certainly not something that can be substantiated by the scientific evidence. Perhaps some 'fringe' papers might back this up, but it is far from being the accepted consensus view. It'd be more accurate to change your sentence to 'A tiny minority of scientists consider that man has no influence on climate whatsoever'.

 

HTH

[aintforever]

To understand the future you need to understand the past, but the lefties have their heads so far up arses that they don't even consider the FACT that the worlds climate changes naturally and has done so since the dawm of time.

 

In recent years we've had a warm spell in the middle ages (when many of the cathedrals were built) and a mini ice age in the 18th century (when the Thames froze over in London). So we've gone from a warm period to a cold period in 400 years - in geological terms this is the blink of an eye. And if you take the current warm period into account that's 3 swings in 600 years.

 

Global warming and global cooling is a fact of nature. Man has no influence on it whatsoever.

 

Maybe you should give the World's Scientific community a call and let them know about ice ages and stuff?

[badgerx16]

To understand the future you need to understand the past, ........ the FACT that the world's climate changes naturally and has done so since the dawn of time.

 

In recent years we've had a warm spell in the middle ages (when many of the cathedrals were built) and a mini ice age in the 18th century (when the Thames froze over in London). So we've gone from a warm period to a cold period in 400 years - in geological terms this is the blink of an eye. And if you take the current warm period into account that's 3 swings in 600 years.

 

Global warming and global cooling is a fact of nature.

This much of your post I completely, entirely, and without any equivocation whatsoever AGREE with.

 

Where you manage to contrive the rest from is only known to your perverse, ill-informed, and misguided sense of reality.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

To understand the future you need to understand the past, but the lefties have their heads so far up arses that they don't even consider the FACT that the worlds climate changes naturally and has done so since the dawm of time.

 

In recent years we've had a warm spell in the middle ages (when many of the cathedrals were built) and a mini ice age in the 18th century (when the Thames froze over in London). So we've gone from a warm period to a cold period in 400 years - in geological terms this is the blink of an eye. And if you take the current warm period into account that's 3 swings in 600 years.

 

Global warming and global cooling is a fact of nature. Man has no influence on it whatsoever.

 

I'll say it again, how can we be 100% sure of the readings from the 16th century? The truth is YOU CAN'T. So sit down and shut up.

[TopGun]

I have to say St George can ramble on forever with my blessing. He makes climate change deniers look like utter lunatics.

[badgerx16]

I'll say it again, how can we be 100% sure of the readings from the 16th century? The truth is YOU CAN'T. So sit down and shut up.

Which is exactly one of the points causing 'issue' in the hacked e-mails, how to interpret 18th century handwritten notes. The scientists trying to plot this data have to use extrapolation and 'best fit' at times, simply because the written record is occasionally unintelligible and otherwise there are holes in the dataset, all of which is entirely open and above board and subject to peer review scrutiny, but the deniers then accuse them of making things up.

Edited 23 November, 2009 by badgerx16

[Saint George]

LOL this is just like a bunch of kids finding out for the first time that Father Christmas doesn't really exist.....tantrums et el

 

Acceptance will come eventually, it'll just take some peeps longer than others.

 

In the words of Mr Trenberth, in email ....1255558867 http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1058&filename=1255558867.txt

 

"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."

 

No wonder they had to manipulate, withold, and destroy so much data to keep their credibility

 

The fact none of you have come out and condemned the deception etc ....put's y'all in the corrupt and worthless boat in my book...but anything goes if it means you can seen to be right eh

[hypochondriac]

lol this is just like a bunch of kids finding out for the first time that father christmas doesn't really exist.....tantrums et el

 

acceptance will come eventually, it'll just take some peeps longer than others.

 

In the words of mr trenberth, in email ....1255558867 http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1058&filename=1255558867.txt

 

"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."

 

no wonder they had to manipulate, withold, and destroy so much data to keep their credibility

 

the fact none of you have come out and condemned the deception etc ....put's y'all in the corrupt and worthless boat in my book...but anything goes if it means you can seen to be right eh

 

 

do you want to reply to minty's original post???

[Verbal]

LOL this is just like a bunch of kids finding out for the first time that Father Christmas doesn't really exist.....tantrums et el

 

Acceptance will come eventually, it'll just take some peeps longer than others.

 

In the words of Mr Trenberth, in email ....1255558867 http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1058&filename=1255558867.txt

 

"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."

 

No wonder they had to manipulate, withold, and destroy so much data to keep their credibility

 

The fact none of you have come out and condemned the deception etc ....put's y'all in the corrupt and worthless boat in my book...but anything goes if it means you can seen to be right eh

 

This is quite childish.

 

FWIW, and as I've already said, I thought some of the comments in those PRIVATE emails were injudicious, given the hysterical nature of deniers, who see conspiracies everwhere.

 

But are you really suggesting that a few ambiguous, but still privately expressed comments, amount to a demolition of atmospheric chemistry itself?

 

If so, St Canute, you're even flakier than I thought was possible - or, as I suspect, you're just on a colossal wind-up. Because no one can be THAT imbecilic...can they?

[Joensuu]

LOL this is just like a bunch of kids finding out for the first time that Father Christmas doesn't really exist.....tantrums et el

 

DO NOT deliberately start arguments. This is known as "trolling". It is usually very easy to spot, and offending threads will be locked or deleted.

 

Acceptance will come eventually, it'll just take some peeps longer than others.

 

In the words of Mr Trenberth, in email ....1255558867 http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1058&filename=1255558867.txt

 

"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."

 

No wonder they had to manipulate, withold, and destroy so much data to keep their credibility

 

In response:

 

Trenberth is talking about our inability to be able to measure the net radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere to the requisite precision to be able to say on short time scales what the energy budget is doing. The observations are inadequate for that - not sure who is saying otherwise.

 

Trenberth doesn't have a model. Instead he is really interested in what exactly is going on in the observations. Where is the energy going, how much is coming in and going out, what are the impacts of La Nina on those fluxes. His frustration is that the current observing platform is not sufficiently accurate to do this properly, and so we end up with imperfect explanations - especially on the short term. For him, 'natural variability' is only the beginning of the answer, not the whole thing. And that's fine

 

Edit... a better explaination of Trenberth's 'email' can be found here: http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/21/hacked-emails-ncar-kevin-trenberth/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

Edited 23 November, 2009 by Joensuu

[Sheaf Saint]

To understand the future you need to understand the past, but the lefties have their heads so far up arses that they don't even consider the FACT that the worlds climate changes naturally and has done so since the dawm of time.

 

In recent years we've had a warm spell in the middle ages (when many of the cathedrals were built) and a mini ice age in the 18th century (when the Thames froze over in London). So we've gone from a warm period to a cold period in 400 years - in geological terms this is the blink of an eye. And if you take the current warm period into account that's 3 swings in 600 years.

 

Global warming and global cooling is a fact of nature. Man has no influence on it whatsoever.

 

Oh well that's that then. Panic over everybody. We can carry on dumping millions upon millions of tonnes of polluting gases into our atmosphere and it won't matter a jot because any changes in the climate will be purely natural and not in any way related to the rape of the planet that we are currently undergoing.

 

The way I see it is essentially the same as Minty: If there is even a 1% chance that the current climate change anthropogenic then we as a species must work together to reduce any possible impact until we know for absolute certain (which I doubt we ever actually will). The phrase 'better safe than sorry' never seemed so appropriate.

 

Oh and Dune, you lose any respect or credibility you might have ever had when you start throwing pathetic generalisations about like "the lefties have their heads so far up arses that they don't even consider the FACT that the worlds climate changes naturally and has done so since the dawm of time." Firstly, who are the 'lefties' you refer to? Do you consider that everybody on the planet who is open-minded about the possibility of MMCC must by default be on the left politically? Is it not possible to be concerned about the future of our planet while at the same time sit on the right of the political spectrum? And secondly, I haven't seen one single post on this thread where anybody has denied the FACT of the natural cycles you speak of.

 

Why is it that the balanced, informed and reasoned posts on this thread are from the people that accept the majority scientific view and care about the future of our environment, and the ranting frothing-at-the-mouth ones are from the climate change deniers? Is there something to be read into that?

[Sheaf Saint]

The fact none of you have come out and condemned the deception etc ....put's y'all in the corrupt and worthless boat in my book...but anything goes if it means you can seen to be right eh

 

And that, right there St George, is precisely the reason you are treated with such utter contempt on this forum - because you are unable to show the slightest bit of respect for anybody else's point of view.

[View From The Top]

And that, right there St George, is precisely the reason you are treated with such utter contempt on this forum - because you are unable to show the slightest bit of respect for anybody else's point of view.

 

Come on, we all listen avidly since he's proved, in the past, that the American President is a commie.

[badgerx16]

do you want to reply to minty's original post???

 

And while you're at it, Mrs Thatcher is still waiting for your explanation as to how she was wrong in 1989.

[Barney Trubble]

Interesting blog about the situation in Cumbria.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/11/is_cumbria_a_victim_of_climate.html

[badgerx16]

Looks like 'commie' Obama is perpetuating the hoax

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375248.stm

 

And before St G posts up this by the renowned climate expert Lord Lawson of Blaby,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece

 

There is a counter to it here,

http://www.leftfootforward.org/

 

Once again, feel free to read both and make up your own mind. If you choose the former, I promise there will be no name calling.

[aintforever]

And before St G posts up this by the renowned climate expert Lord Lawson of Blaby,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece

 

Whilst I think his views on the science is complete nonsense, I fear he is depressingly accurate about the attitude of the politicians. They can't even agree on a target let alone meet a target. If the scientists are right then we, as a country, should focus on adapting to whatever changes will happen, thanks mainly to the US and China.

 

Lord Lawson makes me want to puke when he mentions winners and losers, he knows full well that if what is predicted does happen then millions of people in Africa and Asia who rely on subsistence farming will probably die.

[TopGun]

An interesting pre-Copenhagen synopsis of where different nations stand currently in terms of their climate change aspirations.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8345343.stm

[Saint George]

LOL With 3 post's in 24 hrs I'm not even going to attempt to reply to the temper tantrums on here...Man...they say the truth hurts, but this is apocaliptic.

If y'all can't see anything wrong with "Mikes nature trick" or the ousting of scientist's with differing opinions, or the 'fixing' of the Peer Review process, or the destruction of 'inconvenient' public records and the general deception contained within these emails... Then i can honestly say I consider it an Honor to be "despised" here....Hell, I'm truly thankful I'm not like you.

 

 

To anyone else who can hear above the screaming brats, who are behaving like they just found out Father Christmas isn't real......check this out...

 

 

This guy is right on the money

 

BTW...For anyone that wants an idea of what the Climate looks like in relation to CO2 levels without "Mikes nature trick" to "Hide the decline"

 

 

 

Well I'm off to contemplate how censuring 'one side' of a discussion at Real Climate could possibly be considered "moderation"?.....Na, i don't get it either, but hey, who knows what goes through the minds of peeps around here....I mean 'forcing' beliefs into the science is is just dandy it seems....well as long as the result is what some 'want' the hear anyway

 

Have a nice day y'all

[Verbal]

All you're doing is wheeling out yet another tired, discredited CC denier - this time, someone who is not only bought and paid for by two Canadian oil industry lobby firms, but who lies on his CV (claiming he his a Doctor of Science in Climatology, when he is in fact a Doctor of Philosophy in Geography).

 

As the following link points out:

 

"It must be soul-destroying to see a long-retired geographer who rarely published during his colourless academic career and who never conducted any research in atmospheric science dismiss that effort without a shred of evidence or a hint of good conscience."

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die

 

Can't you at least give us ONE scientist who is not untrained in atmospheric chemistry, and a liar? You really can't find one credible source for whatever it is you so religiously believe?

Edited 24 November, 2009 by Verbal

[badgerx16]

St George's latest posting is from http://www.hyscience.com, who are world renowned impartial climate experts as can be seen from this, taken ( unedited and complete ) from their own "about us" page. Just put hyscience.com into GOOGLE;

 

"The primary interests of Hyscience authors are Clinical Pharmacology, Medicine, the Middle East and international terrorism, and International News. Guest authors include highly experienced scientists and physicians with extensive medical-legal jurisprudence expertise and additionally, moderate Muslims with significant technical expertise and first-hand knowledge of the Middle East and Islam. "

 

Well that's me convinced then.