for the global warming weinnies >
 

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political ?cause? rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

?I?ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,?writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

?Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get ? and has to be well hidden,? Jones writes in another newly released email. ?I?ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.?

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. ?Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?? Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. ?Keith will do likewise. ? We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!?

The new emails also reveal the scientists? attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

?The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what?s included and what is left out? of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC?s most recent climate assessment.

?I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don?t know what she thinks she?s doing, but its not helping the cause,? wrote Mann in another newly released email.

?I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose? skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists ?must get rid of? the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

?Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,? writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

?I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,? Thorne adds.

?Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive ? there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,? Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-debate/

Climate Change deniers are a very sad and unfortunately, dangerous bunch. Idiots don't give 2 shits about the planet, environment, the people, children, animals and natural beauty make me sick. Assholes who are afraid of the bad news deny its happening and then go out of their way to make things worse, and look to other assholes for support. Very sad, Very stupid people.

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”


― Mark Twain

keep second guessing the basic laws of science. you're not even on the payroll of any of the energy companies who have a vested interest in keeping people in the dark and/or confused. i hope all the climate change deniers get fucking lynched once all the beach cities are underwater worldwide.

Since when is the scientific method a bunch of people agreeing on something?

Since fucking never that's when.

It's amazing that they can read that these scientists are deliberately manipulating data (like ignoring the new data that shows CO2 being absorbed by the ocean)...but yet Mark Prince and others won't even CONSIDER that.

It's 100% settled in their minds no matter what.

Just like some dumb people believed it in the 1970's when they called for an Ice Age.

I think we are going to see a lot more coming out over time. And the whole Global Warming caused by humans will be exposed as a money scam.

Common sense and historical long view show that the Earth warms and cools and has done so for millions of years without a single human being on Earth.

And it will continue to do so long after our species is gone and forgotten.

Robbie: There is overwhelming proof that the climate is warming up, that it will have terrible consequences, and that most of it is being created by man.

It is the deniers, the republicans, the morons, the religious nut jobs, who have it settled in their minds that it is not happening, their heads forever buried in the sand.

The article that the OP posted is written by James Taylor, a Kock Brother funded asshole. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute should enlighten you.

Really? That's your argument? Consider this then: Those "dumb people" also warned against the dangers of acid rain, remember that? Did you forget that it wasn't until the problem got so out of control that the governments finally did something about it, reduced the chemicals that caused it, and today Acid Rain is on the decline.

And what if you're wrong? Then what? Loss of life (human, animal, sea), stronger storms, rising sea levels, etc. All terrible tragedies that can be avoided or at least reduced, but instead, big oil is trying to convince you otherwise, and you're buying it.

This isn't the issue. The issue is that the earth, right now, is in danger of getting much warmer, much faster. Don't worry about a million years from now. Worry about 50 years from now, and the earth you are leaving your kids and grandkids.

Sad, sir Robbie... very sad.

You miss the very basic point of Science, and in particular, the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. It's quiet another thing when non-scientists, or "scientific" writers discredit true science and scientists for money, through up alot of pseudo science and lies to advance the agenda of a couple of Kochs who value their profits over the health of everyone on the planet.

Sorry to inform you but the entire planet has been bought and sold to a few rich families who have already decided the fate for the rest of us...but ultimately it will not matter as our time as a species will pass and some other animal will take our place at the top of the food chain with much better results than we did with out turn no doubt.

Mark...what about the fact that what you are claiming is happening...is all based on bad data.

All of the computer generated models that were being used by scientists working for Green Energy companies were founded on a basic premise of CO2 rising.

Now the Earth (as it alwasy does), has adapted and the ocean is absorbing CO2 at a much greater rate than all of those computer models took into account.

I've brought this up several times in these threads with you. But you just keep repeating the Democrat Party mantra of "deniers" while you yourself are in denial over the bad data that global warming is based upon.

I'm open minded about this. And when I first heard of this from a scientist on Bill Maher's show...I was stunned. So was Bill. lol

Maybe I'm interpreting what you are writing in the wrong way...but it sure does sound to me like you don't give a damn about any new data. The old science of global warming is the gospel and new data is tossed aside as if it doesn't exist.

To me...that's not "science". That's religion.

And the article grapesoda just posted reveals that the scientists being funded by groups with major investment in green energy are indeed deliberately not reporting the new data.

Doesn't that make you pause for a second and question that? Does anything make you question what the govt. is up to at any given moment?
There is a LOT of money being made in the "Carbon Credit" business right now. It doesn't "save" the Earth one bit. But it's making a ton of money for some very rich people.

Doesn't that strike you as at least a little bit "off" if the true purpose was to "save the planet"?

I know you won't even CONSIDER that at all. But I'm telling you...you're behind on the science of what is happening. The new data completely makes the old computer models obsolete and wrong.

And quite frankly...that's a good thing. It means that we WON'T be underwater on the coastal cities (just like they predicted in 1970 that global warming would have the entire East and West coast underwater by the year 2000...14 years ago). It means that the planet is not being killed by humans (I know that's a hard one for our species ego...but we're a pimple on the ass of the Earth).

That s not at all the scientific method, are you really trying to deflect this to an argument that random people agreeing on something is scientific method? I mean really. Just mother fu c king god damn wow.

And this is the problem right there.

Climate change deniers put down all the science and believe nothing ... until some evidence or news come out that supports them ... THEN they believe that ... kind of like what you said above about the emails. That is easy for you to believe and you don't question it and accept it as fact.

weird isn't it? the climate is changing, the earth is coming out of a mini ice age BUT that really has nothing to do with humans... global warming is a political movement to extort money.. nothing else.. :2 cents:

I woke up this morning still thinking that someone thinks the scientific method is based on voting.

and then using a catchphrase like "the science is settled" in order to quash real and valid science and discussion being applied.

wow.

you just said this about all of the scientists who's emails were released.:1orglaugh


but you know better than they do.

Climate Change believers are a very sad and unfortunately, dangerous bunch. Idiots don't give 2 shits about the planet, environment, the people, children, animals and natural beauty make me sick. Assholes who are afraid of their own shadow and believing so called "scientists" who are paid to prove a false "truth" and then go out of their way to make things worse, and look to other assholes for support. Very sad, Very stupid people.
Here are the socalled scientists using the scientific method:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.


“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

When I learned the scientific method in school, I missed the part about covering yourself by deleting emails showing your work. :1orglaugh

post reported

Meanwhile.........


Last Month Was Hottest June On Record

Says the same group of lying scientists.

This is perfectly normal. We are coming out of an ice age.

The ice is going to melt. The oceans are going to rise. And there is not one damn thing we can do about it.

What bad data?

I am not talking about computer models. I am talking about real, measurable changes that are happening today. Increase CO2 (and other greenshouse gases) are rising. The earth's temperature IS rising. Drought, forest fires etc ARE on the rise, the are more record-breaking high heat days than ever.

Stop there:
- The amount of CO2 we have put into the air is much higher than it has ever been.
- CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas.
- Ocean absorbs only 25% of the total CO2 we pump into the air.

Furthermore, the rate at which the ocean absorbs the CO2 is DROPPING. Read this: (from https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/ke...ceans-take-up/)


My position on the subject has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with science.

I read about and watch TV about climate change every chance I get. The new data is showing that things are worse than predicted, not better.

I stand with Bill Maher on this. People who counter scientific facts with religious "facts" are scared stupid idiots.

And "scientists" funded by big oil should be taken on their word when they say "everything is *cough cough* fine"?

See, I see this from completely the opposite end. I see old rich republicans getting richer because they are paid to push big oil, and think that "carbon credit" is being demonized by big oil.

There's nothing wrong with making money to save the planet. Going "Green" can be very profitable and create a ton of new jobs. The words "Job Killer", especially in US politics, has been attributed to Green energy which it isn't at all - it's just more "noise" put out by Big Oil, Kochs, and republicans.

Not true. I will consider everything. Please show me links to the new data you are talking about. I promise I will read it, maybe do some more research, and get back to you. Trust me I want a green planet.

I wish you were right, but for now anyway, I will believe the scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physic...www/node6.html
http://www.sciencebob.com/sciencefai...ificmethod.php
http://chemistry.about.com/od/lectur...encemethod.htm
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/scienc...c_method.shtml
http://science.howstuffworks.com/inn...ic-method6.htm
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
http://www.education.com/reference/a...at_Scientific/
etc etc etc

Yes, read the first link maekprince and quote the first paragrah back here please.

This old earth has shook off a lot bigger piss ants than man before. The earth goes through cycles. Cycles that maybe animals wont survive.
Instead of man spending so much time trying to figure out how man is destroying the earth, maybe he should put some effort into figuring out how the earth will destroy man.

No, you're not believing the "scientists".

You are believing computer generated models from the year 2000 that are the basis for the "Global Warming" big business.

Read this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...arbon-dioxide/

All the models that scientists used in 2000 are WRONG. They didn't take these variations into account. They went with a "constant".

But don't listen to new data and new science. And pay no attention to what the top scientists said privately to each other in emails.
Just keep listening to what they say when they are in public and being paid by people with huge financial interests in Carbon Credits.

Exactly. Thinking that man is anything but a minor annoyance to the Earth is a joke.

Let's just keep polluting the shit out of our planet. Use up the rest of coal and oil resources.

Fuck all the better alternatives. They are just scam and ways for governments to milk their populations. No way are they for the greater good of life on Earth.

That's great. You're awesome according to you.

If you want to live in an echo chamber of chicken littles you go ahead. Other people in the real world are trying to make sure that the real scientific method isn't being abused and misused to implement faulty and costly policy decisions. If you think that climate alarmists are beyond manipulating data to bolster their case then you are even more naive than you appear.

Are climate sceptics the real champions of the scientific method?


.

We are polluting far less now than we did in the 20th century.

If the U.S. Federal Govt. would stop sending out the military to fly jets, drive tanks, and drop bombs (that make a bigger "carbon imprint" than ALL the cars driven in the world)...then even the CO2 "problem" (you know the stuff you exhale when you breath and the stuff that plants thrive off of) wouldn't be that "bad".

But I guess that while the Democrat Party in power is calling for all of us to live like paupers and ride bicycles and drive electric cars....the military just keeps on flying jets every day, riding in tanks, giant ships, etc, etc.
And our "leaders" in Washington D.C. (of both parties) ride around in limos, fly private jets, and live extravagant lifestyles with HUGE "carbon footprints".

Other than lecturing us on how to live our lives...they don't really seem too concerned about "Global Warming" by the way they are acting. Makes you wonder what they know and aren't telling the general public.

But it's ok, they use "green" fuel - no matter the cost.

As Pentagon invests in green fuel, critics focus on the cost

Some people are highly susceptible to propaganda and incapable of looking at the wider agenda :2 cents:

Global Warming is a money-making scam, it's an excuse to put taxes in place, it comes from the very top of the system i.e. House of Rothschild

This doesn't exclude human interaction. Despite of the millions and millions of years without humans, there are now human cities, etc. If we impact on nothing, there shouldn't be cities or even us.

Even if some regular rock has standed somewhere thousands years, it doesn't meant that you can't kick it out of it's place.

We have also atmosphere and enough oxygen to breath. That oxygen has been created by living things. That clearly proves that the conditions on earth can be changed by the influence of living creatures.

They have a cool show on History Channel. I think it's called "Life After People"

And it goes forward in time to show what happens to all of our cities and pretty much everything that even hints of our existence over time.

Anyway, of course we have some "impact" on ourselves. What's the old saying: "Don't shit where you eat"

But looking at the much bigger picture...our species is a temporary thing and a tiny asterisk on the history of the Earth.

Even if we somehow don't all die from some kind of virus of plague...or nuke ourselves out of existence...I still don't see humans being here in a million years. Or even 100,000 years. Or even 10,000 more years. Do you?

The Earth WILL eradicate us and change into something else. It's been here for billions of years, and the future is infinite.

The Earth will sustain lifeforms and be just fine (unless the sun dies). Humans can't change that no matter how big our egos are.

Can we bring about conditions to kill ourselves? Yeah. Can we do things to stop killing ourselves? Yes by definition.

But like I said....right now as I'm typing this, our federal govt. of the United States has military personnel all over the world flying jets, riding tanks, on big ships, and dropping bombs.

I had never thought about it before...but I am now.
You never hear the "green energy" people OR the politicians OR the "scientists" bring up the military.
Gee, I wonder why?

Could it be that maybe they know that "global warming" isn't what it's being presented as?
Because if it were true and we were all heading to our doom...wouldn't the Govt.'s of the world IMMEDIATELY stop their military exploits? And wouldn't they IMMEDIATELY take all those tax dollars and put up solar panels on every home and business?

But they don't. Instead they just keep on "polluting".
The U.S. Military is THE biggest polluter in the world. Check it out if you have time:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3...global-climate

Wrong on all counts. You have no problem just accepting such lies at face value and no problem spreading the lies for other gullible people to get sucked into.

http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141

http://www.nature.com/public/article...ta20141-f5.jpg


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/0...al-for-nature/


Record low temperatures are outpacing record high temperatures:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records



.

Shhhh...don't say anything that conflicts with Mark Prince's preconceived notions.

Just listen to MSNBC and believe everything they tell you...

Wait.. So you will believe a opinion piece about a bunch of emails that you haven't seen or read the full contents of (ie quoted lines taken out of context).. You will just willing believe it all because it fits your agenda, but you openly question all science on the topic.

And you call us weinnies..

Impact to ourselves? Well yes, but not just to ourselves. We have made a bunch of animals extinct and contrary we have made other specie's populations huge, most notably cows, chickens, pigs, etc. We have dried whole lakes, shaped landscape, for example the great plains of American widwest are now great fields of crop. We have huge impact on life on Earth. So I hope you were joking. And I am talking about the impact right now, not some hypothetical time after humans, right now, right here. Of course the impact lessens if there are no "we" anymore, just like sun won't warm if there is no sun, but there is sun right now so let's cut the bullshit.

Human beings lifetime as a population/specie (some sort anyway) is irrelevant for this talk, but I believe that we have good chance for living forever. Thanks to our skills to adapt.

About the human made climate change, whether it is warm, cold or whatever, isn't doom day and no good scientist has said so. I said "good scientist", because graduating from school and doing some research doesn't exclude you being total whacko. And even if it would be doom day, militaries wouldn't cease to exist.

Personally I don't even keep this human made climate change issue as the most important one. General pollution and negative effect to the ecosystem are the biggest threats for all life on Earth.

What's your take on it?

You call other people idiots but actually you are not very smart, are you? Term "Climate Change" is a pleonasm. Of course that climate is changing, it always had and always will.

The fact is that averange temperature on Earth for the last 650 milions years was 22°C.
(now it's 15°C). Earth has never been colder in the last 65 milions years than now.
http://www.hugovandermolen.nl/enviro...lion-years.gif

There where two times where we had even lower temperature and in both cases it ended in mass extintion of life on the whole planet.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

That's a great saying and completely relevant to some people in this thread :thumbsup

hey.. wasn't there giant lizards ruling the earth during those times?

I can tell you what is not a joke or false; the modification and over processing of the nations food supply for generous profits by big name household name companies, and other profit greedy zealots like the insurance and pharmacological companies.

100% fact. Our food is shit, and people should focus on that instead of the man behind the curtain playing manipulated data games to scare people.

One is fiction, one is non.

But it's all good, the sheeple will just go about believing what companies tell them on the TV setters. They're paying for that trust.

Great quote from Mark Twain above. I couldn't agree more.

Pretty much so. So let's not worry about any warming, lizards will do fine. :)

Don't get me started about European view to American food, drug and similar habits. But you summed up it pretty well.

phew! here i was almost convinced a mere change of 7 degrees wouldn't even matter!

http://i.imgur.com/ZgjqzTR.jpg

what a total idiotic argument. please move to the coast if you're not there already.

so you'll guys will believe in basic scientific laws of gravity, newton's laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, theory of general relativity. really rudimentary shit, and 1000 others EXCEPT THIS ONE. makes PERFECT sense.

My take is after reading a few of the quoted blocks of the emails, is that they could be talking about many things.

These for instance..

There is nothing damming about anything said in the first 3 quoted examples. Unless of course you are trying to spin a agenda against global warming. There is no context to see what they were actually discussing, just a few cherry picked lines.

The first they are talking what to leave in a report or what to leave out. Just because they want to leave out info, doesn't mean that it's some conspiracy. They are trying to decide what is important and what is not.

So they don't think a random scientist is working with them.. big deal are they not allowed to discuss that?

As far as the last.. while yes it seems like dirty tactics, trying to get someone to investigate a person. It doesn't mean they are in some conspiracy. it just shows that someone is likely on a power trip..

None of these proof anything they are just a bunch cherry picked quotes cobbled together in a agenda biased article trying to lead you on.

If this was the proof in the pudding, then why is it all so vague, with just cherry picked quotes with no context to actually judge them by?

This is nothing more than a opinion biased article where the writer is trying to led you on with no real evidence.