'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'

[someguy]

YouTube - 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'

Hackers claim confidential mails from scientists show that climate change data has been forged. Former minister MP Peter Lilley joined RT to discuss the scandal dubbed Climategate.

[Clancy]

According to some un-named hackers and the former British MP of the ultra conservative corporate party?

This is pure propaganda.

YouTube - 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'

Hackers claim confidential mails from scientists show that climate change data has been forged. Former minister MP Peter Lilley joined RT to discuss the scandal dubbed Climategate.

[Barry]

According to some un-named hackers and the former British MP of the ultra conservative corporate party?

This is pure propaganda.

I haven't watched the posted video, but I did read an article, I believe on the NY Times, that discussed this. A climate activist oriented website was hacked. The hackers copied and released private emails (A huge violation in my book). Amongst the many emails, there was a private from one member to another that reference using a "trick" that helped present the data in an a favorable light. However "a trick" is also commonly used when referencing a subtle valid technique rather than "changing facts".

[handy]

According to some un-named hackers and the former British MP of the ultra conservative corporate party?

This is pure propaganda.

Yes, well, apparently the impure propaganda is beginning to see the light of day.

The arrogance of the "warmers" is finally exposed.

Gee, what an inconvenient truth...

We need more whistleblowers!

[someguy]

I haven't watched the posted video, but I did read an article, I believe on the NY Times, that discussed this. A climate activist oriented website was hacked. The hackers copied and released private emails (A huge violation in my book). Amongst the many emails, there was a private from one member to another that reference using a "trick" that helped present the data in an a favorable light. However "a trick" is also commonly used when referencing a subtle valid technique rather than "changing facts".

Here is the stolen quote in question: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

I think the keywords are the last four, not the part about the 'trick'.

Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data' - Telegraph

[Clancy]

On one hand you have the top climatologists from 113 countries who present the evidence that global warming is manmade in peer reviewed science journals, on the other you have hearsay by unknown hackers about unknown 'scientists' from one country concerning some unknown... what? You think that somehow refutes the science?

How do you make such an absurd leap?

Yes, well, apparently the impure propaganda is beginning to see the light of day.

The arrogance of the "warmers" is finally exposed.

Gee, what an inconvenient truth...

We need more whistleblowers!

[someguy]

on the other you have hearsay by unknown hackers about unknown 'scientists' from one country concerning some unknown... what?

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...21climate.html

You should check out this article, it goes over who the scientists are. Since they are prominent American and British climate researchers this could turn out to be a big deal. Let's just sit back and wait for this to unfold before we cling to our ideologies and reject any and all new information.

[Clancy]

HELLO... you should ask yourself why the oil industry's army of scientists can't refute the science via peer reviewed SCIENCE.

It's not because of some conspiracy involving the top scientists from 113 nations, it's because the evidence overwhelmingly shows that global warming is manmade.

Meanwhile, keep grasping at straws.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...21climate.html

You should check out this article, it goes over who the scientists are. Since they are prominent American and British climate researchers this could turn out to be a big deal. Let's just sit back and wait for this to unfold before we cling to our ideologies and reject any and all new information.

[Zeno Swijtink]

The "climate skeptics" are getting desperate, resorting to selective cutting and pasting of ongoing dialogue of the scientific give-and-take, from years ago.

In fact, the Member of Parliament in this TV segment never comes out to say clearly what he thinks.

For detailed, evidence-based and informed, commentary from RealClimate.org see:

'The CRU hack' :

RealClimate: The CRU hack

'The CRU hack: Context' :

RealClimate: The CRU hack: Context

[Hotspring 44]

Seems to me a possibility that the Cheney / Exxon / Coal Mining / connection could be involved with “friends” that were / are (?) in the "Carnivore" Network during the time Cheney was in Office. Note: Cheney‘s home state is Wyoming and that the top ten largest Coal Mining operations in the United States are in Wyoming. EIA - Major U.S. Coal Mines
Also there has been concern about global political instability because of polar ice cap melting, and the rise of sea level as a result. Never mind for a moment whether or not it's human caused. Nonetheless, at this point in time there is intelligence agencies involved with National Security concerns of the real possibility of sea level rising & causing mass migration to higher ground.
Intelligence “leaks” do happen. But also sometimes those (leaks) are for political / strategic reasons.
Sometimes those so-called leaks are planned far in advance as a stopgap measure for something that is anticipated that could possibly happen in the future.
It (the hacked e-mail info) could have been an order (request) given (in anticipation) before the Obama administration even was the Obama administration in the first place.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist; I'm just saying those things do happen.
This Link is an article that is evidence of likely NSA / Intelligence concerns to how real the sea level threat potential is in the area of US National Security. National Security and the Threat of Climate Change (Audio) - Council on Foreign Relations

A couple side notes

: In “The Shock Doctrine”, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism | Naomi Klein

And:

Some USA PATRIOT Act Concerns: E-Mail Surveillance: The USA PATRIOT Act expands use of the "Carnivore" Internet surveillance system. The FBI installs Carnivore on the networks of Internet Service Providers and then searches e-mails, including those from innocent people. Congress had never authorized Carnivore, but Section 216 of the bill basically endorses its use. While Section 216 requires reports on the use of Carnivore, it will likely result in more use of the system. Spying on Americans: Section 203 of the anti-terrorism legislation puts the Central Intelligence Agency back in the business of spying on Americans. It permits a vast array of information gathering on U.S. citizens from school records, financial transactions, Internet activity, telephone conversations, information from grand jury proceedings and criminal investigations. What did Congress do in the 107th Congress, First Session? National Security and The Threat Of Climate Change [Rush Transcript; Federal News Service, Inc.] - Council on Foreign Relations

Besides, if the ocean level does rise by 20 or more feet it would be catastrophic on a world wide scale (some estimates go to 60 feet above present) and an extreme strain on all governments and peoples. BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Earth - melting in the heat?
Also, there currently is a scientifically documented fact of many animals dying off on a worldwide scale that is unprecedented since the last dinosaurs’ demise.
BBC News - Global warming science alarming, say climate experts

Human beings are currently causing the greatest mass extinction of species since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. If present trends continue one half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in less than 100 years, as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. https://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html

Note that “climate change” is not the only factor stated and that other human caused things are having an effect. To say (blame) it all on only CO2 from humans is to some extent leaving out the other factors. But that being said, it may be that human generated CO2 is, if not the singular major factor for species die-off, it is a major factor.
Even if there is the slightest possibility of a “Runaway” Greenhouse Gas from Methane, CO2, Nitrous Oxide, and whatever else, it is in our best interest to minimize the potential of the peat bogs in the Northern Hemisphere from “Gassing” out Methane. Our ability to reduce the potential of that happening is a real issue that could put us in peril if we ignore the “warning signs”. What is “inconvenient” now could be catastrophic later.
Zeeburg Nieuws / Climate Change / Methane greenhouse effect and methane hydrates are starting to melt
HYDRATECH-Techniques for the Quantification of Methane Hydrate in European Continental Margins

Methane seeps from Arctic sea-bed: London, August 19 /24, 2009 - Scientists say they have evidence that the powerful greenhouse gas methane is escaping from the Arctic sea-bed. Researchers say this could be evidence of a predicted positive feedback effect of climate change. A paper in Geophysical Research Letters details the findings, made on an expedition in Autumn 2008 in the British research ship RRS James Clark Ross. The team of scientists from Birmingham University, the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton and Royal Holloway University think the gas is being released from methane hydrate beneath the seabed, which is melting because of warming waters above. Similar gas plumes have been found elsewhere in places like the Black Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, but this is the first time scientists have found them in where the conditions for their occurrence can be clearly attributed to climate warming. 'Various people have predicted this for several years, and methane from hydrate beneath the sea bed has been strongly appealed to by scientists looking to explain past climate shifts,' says Professor Graham Westbrook, a geophysicist at Birmingham University. 'But this is first time anyone's discovered a situation where it actually seems to be happening now as a result of rising water temperatures,' he adds. > news.bbc.co.uk: Methane seeps from Arctic sea-bed (August 19) > planetearth.nerc.ac.uk: Warming waters release methane plumes into Arctic sea (August 24) > www.noc.soton.ac.uk: Warming Ocean Contributes to Global Warming (August 06) > www.agu.org: Escape of methane gas from the seabed along the West Spitsbergen continental margin (August 06) Stressed Crops Emit More Methane Than Thought: Calgary, (Canada) August 19, 2009 Scientists at the University of Calgary have found that methane emission by plants could be a bigger problem in global warming than previously thought. > www.seeddaily.com: Stressed Crops Emit More Methane Than Thought Warming ocean contributes to global warming August 14th, 2009 The warming of an Arctic current over the last 30 years has triggered the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from methane hydrate stored in the sediment beneath the seabed. Scientists at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton working in collaboration with researchers from the University of Birmingham, Royal Holloway London and IFM-Geomar in Germany have found that more than 250 plumes of bubbles of methane gas are rising from the seabed of the West Spitsbergen continental margin in the Arctic, in a depth range of 150 to 400 metres. > www.physorg.com: Warming ocean contributes to global warming" London, 23 / 25 September 2008 - British scientists have discovered hundreds more methane "plumes" bubbling up from the Arctic seabed, in an area to the west of the Norwegian island of Svalbard. It is the second time in a week that scientists have reported methane emissions from the Arctic. Methane gas oozing up from Siberian seabed: Swedish researcher Stockholm, (Sweden), August 30, 2008 - Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is leaking from the permafrost under the Siberian seabed, a researcher on an international expedition in the region told Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter on Saturday. www.physorg.com: Methane gas oozing up from Siberian seabed: Swedish researcher

Even though 100% of the factors haven't been puzzled together by the scientific community yet does not mean there is not a trend in a particular direction that all climatologists seem to essentially agree on.
Humans will be human; some people (climatologists included) would rather have money now because they won't be around in 2050. I'm saying that I believe some people can be bought. It really is that simple. On the other hand, doing the science and crunching the numbers, which always change when new facts are discovered, that can be daunting to some and for some it can also be a reason, a pathway, or an excuse to nitpick over the details for purposes of either ego or profit or sometimes both.

YouTube - 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'

Hackers claim confidential mails from scientists show that climate change data has been forged. Former minister MP Peter Lilley joined RT to discuss the scandal dubbed Climategate.

[busyb555]

No Barry, actually the biggest scam of our time is the one Al Gore has played on us all. Not only is it not true, not true that we are changing the climate, but in fact we have global cooling instead. Sun spots, now there is one to consider if you want to find the culprit. But, much harder to tax the sun.

I agree, dumping oil into water or fouling the air we need is wrong, but heating the planet is being used to rob the wealth of the USA to benefit the underdeveloped countries. Is it any wonder the left is so willing to sell out this great country. Why do you think they hate America so is what I wonder.

I haven't watched the posted video, but I did read an article, I believe on the NY Times, that discussed this. A climate activist oriented website was hacked. The hackers copied and released private emails (A huge violation in my book). Amongst the many emails, there was a private from one member to another that reference using a "trick" that helped present the data in an a favorable light. However "a trick" is also commonly used when referencing a subtle valid technique rather than "changing facts".

[Clancy]

Let's see if I understand this bitter delusion correctly.

The top climatologists from 113 nations report to the United Nations that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows the current global warming is manmade - but you think that somehow Al Gore's desire to sell out America is really what this global scientific 'conspiracy' is about?

Not only are scientists from all over the world conspiring and lying for Al Gore's benefit, you somehow know that the 'truth' is that sunspots are the culprit in cooling the earth, or heating it, or something... but that too is being covered up, in this case by the 'leftists who hate America' because they can't tax the sun...

That is very impressive. It borders on psychosis.

P.S. to Barry - You claim Wacco is 'connecting conscious community', yet you allow all manner of hateful, delusional RW propaganda to hijack many of the discussions. What's up with that?

No Barry, actually the biggest scam of our time is the one Al Gore has played on us all. Not only is it not true, not true that we are changing the climate, but in fact we have global cooling instead. Sun spots, now there is one to consider if you want to find the culprit. But, much harder to tax the sun.

I agree, dumping oil into water or fouling the air we need is wrong, but heating the planet is being used to rob the wealth of the USA to benefit the underdeveloped countries. Is it any wonder the left is so willing to sell out this great country. Why do you think they hate America so is what I wonder.

[someguy]

The "climate skeptics" are getting desperate, resorting to selective cutting and pasting of ongoing dialogue of the scientific give-and-take, from years ago.

In fact, the Member of Parliament in this TV segment never comes out to say clearly what he thinks.

For detailed, evidence-based and informed, commentary from RealClimate.org see:

'The CRU hack' :

RealClimate: The CRU hack

'The CRU hack: Context' :

RealClimate: The CRU hack: Context

Here's a quote from the above article (in bold):

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Well if someone could explain the 'trick' and 'decline' in plain simple wording I may be swayed, but I don't understand a word of the explanation from these CRU folk. If they want people to believe them, they shouldn't put their explanation in scientific jargon so that no normal person can understand what they are talking about.

And why is there secret climate data anyway? Why can't this climate change science be completely transparent?

Also, if there really is global warming caused by man, and if it;s such a big deal and a massive emergency that needs to be dealt with right now, why are we (the government) not spending our -trillion dollars on lining Arizona and New Mexico with solar panels? We could provide free to low cost power to everybody in this nation so easily, why aren't we doing that. Why instead are we saying that we need strict new regulations and cut backs to our current emissions and not just fixing the problem at hand? We could easily have ZERO emissions in no relative time!!!!!! Has nobody heard about Tesla and Zero point energy? We have the technology to give everyone in the world free abundant energy with zero emissions, so why don't we do it, if it is this grandiose problem?

[Hotspring 44]

Q:

Also, if there really is global warming caused by man, and if it;s such a big deal and a massive emergency that needs to be dealt with right now, why are we (the government) not spending our -trillion dollars on lining Arizona and New Mexico with solar panels? We could provide free to low cost power to everybody in this nation so easily, why aren't we doing that. Why instead are we saying that we need strict new regulations and cut backs to our current emissions and not just fixing the problem at hand? We could easily have ZERO emissions in no relative time!!!!!! Has nobody heard about Tesla and Zero point energy? We have the technology to give everyone in the world free abundant energy with zero emissions, so why don't we do it, if it is this grandiose problem?

A: because there are certain powers that be that will either, falsify, disrupt, destroy, create convoluted “factoids”, lobby, and otherwise with whatever means possible attempt to destroy any positive momentum in that direction in the first place. In this case it is mainly the fossil fuel and nuclear power corporations. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
I think some people just hate people that they believe are from the left wing, and they do whatever they can do and say whatever they can say to discredit them, it is like there is some sort of a culture war going on.

“No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context”.

Happens on both sides of the issue, but peer-reviewed science does not get away with it for very long, whereas politicians with lots of money (from certain commercial interests) can get away with it all (or at least most) of the time.
For those whom want to educate themselves that don't already know:

A linear model is one in which a unit change in temperature produces a corresponding unit change in the tree ring attributes—and a linear model assumes that this relationship applies over the entire range of temperatures. World Climate Report The Divergence Problem and the Failure of Tree Rings for Reconstructing Past Climate

Note the word “assumes”. I'm thinking that some so-called science is using assumptions to nitpick and lobby both in the press for public opinion and in Washington for political opinion; against the findings of the vast majority of climatologists.
There are a lot of reasons that I can think of as far as personality goes why many American people don't like Al Gore, for example. For one thing, I don't particularly like Al Gore either. I personally don't particularly like his demeanor; he seems to be like a sixth-grade teacher talking to students as if they are underlings rather than talking to (adult) people whom are his peers and equals. But that being said, that does not mean the science is wrong, no, it just means his demeanor is grating on some of us. Yes I do remember when he was trying to (because of his wife “Tipper”) create an environment of verbal censorship against cussing on TV even movies. So I do understand why some people just can't stand Al Gore. But that does not mean that the climatologists and scientists are all like Al Gore, however I do understand that; why and how people (because of Al Gore's methods of dealings) could be viewed and for whatever reasons, believe that they're being “censored” by Al Gore. I sympathize with those feelings, but I totally disagree with the so-called science of such absolute “arrogant” certainty regarding the denial of human caused climate change as not being even so much as worthy to being factored in. I believe everything must be factored in especially human caused environmental degradation, because that's the only thing we can actually control to some extent.
Obviously, we cannot control the tectonic collision of continents, volcanic eruptions, solar flares, sunspots, Earth’s orbit, etc.. So I think it behooves us to do all we can to be as aware of the cause and effect of things that we do as we possibly can.
Other points to consider in regards to the tree rings, and “the divergence problem”.

“Herein we provide an overview of key studies published on the divergence problem to date and describe their varying assessments of the nature, spatial extent and possible causes of shifts in tree growth sensitivity identified in tree-ring data over the recent period. Despite the considerable efforts documented thus far to understand the divergence phenomenon, there is still substantial uncertainty regarding its possible causes. This uncertainty is largely due to the fact that there are a variety of potential environmental forcing factors, both climatic and non-climatic, natural and anthropogenic, that have covaried with each other over the twentieth century and which could potentially impact radial growth in the manner that has been observed. Possible explanations for the divergence which have been proposed by various researchers are reviewed herein, along with discussion of some of the complexities involved in evaluating this problem.” https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_GPC2007.pdf

As far as science is concerned; I think certain people’s disgust for either the so-called left-wing; Jim Hanson, Climatologists’ or Al Gore is rather misguided,
Also, the oil, coal, and nuclear industries love to play the “gotcha” game with politics; using virtually endless supplies of money to lobby, manipulate and bribe our government officials, and also scare the living crap out of the common folk with out of context cut and pasted (“cherry picked”) factoids.
A lack of education is a condition; ignorance is a choice. It is both sad and frightening that the majority of Americans that vote are stuck in the middle between those two, and the rest of us are so polarized.

[someguy]

Q:
A: because there are certain powers that be that will either, falsify, disrupt, destroy, create convoluted “factoids”, lobby, and otherwise with whatever means possible attempt to destroy any positive momentum in that direction in the first place.

I think that the global warming skeptics would say the exact same thing about the global warming alarmists agenda.

[someguy]

So I was just searching the internet for some information about how the science is constructed since obviously we weren't around for all these thousands of years to record the temperature. This is what I found.

Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a very good point from the wikipedia article addressing the limitations of assumption based theories in bold:

Limitations
The apparent differences between the quantitative and qualitative approaches are not fully reconciled. The reconstructions mentioned above rely on various assumptions to generate their results. If these assumptions do not hold, the reconstructions would be unreliable. For quantitative reconstructions, the most fundamental assumptions are that proxy records vary with temperature and that non-temperature factors do not confound the results. In the historical records temperature fluctuations may be regional rather than hemispheric in scale.
In a letter to Nature (August 10, 2006) Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed at the original title of their 1998 article: Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations (Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759–762; 1999) and pointed out more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article. The press release for the 1998 article [12] framed the uncertainty in terms of regional impacts.

It says that the best observed period is from 1850 to the present day, which is a very small window. If we wanted to know for sure that we are influencing the weather then we would have to know the exact trends of all previous weather. We don't. Or rather we say we do by studying tree rings. That seems like weak ground to be standing on. Are tree rings really a reliable and completely accurate source of recorded weather history? I doubt it.

[someguy]

Here Fox is having the exact same discussion we are having. I recommend watching this.

YouTube - You Spew These Lies! You Cannot Destroy The Commons!

[Hotspring 44]

but when it comes to the peer review aspect I wonder what the corporate funding is? For the most part, any environmental review funded by the gross polluters does not count. remember Phillip Morris saying that there is no evidence that cigarettes cause cancer? same deal here.... corporate lies.

I think that the global warming skeptics would say the exact same thing about the global warming alarmists agenda.

[busyb555]

I think you missed my point. I know all the internet info re this subject. What you need to read are the emails that have been authenticated as real and see for yourself just what the pro Gore/global warming "scientists" have to say. Its beyond clear they manipulated, ignored, teased, combined the data to support the alarmists left position. They LIED and instead of use science to find the truth, well they protected the theory they sold or actually Al Gore sold to the world. Now talk about an investigation just needing to be done. Why don't you forget defending your view and check out the emails. Amazingly enough there are emails between the Obama Climate ZAR so how blind are you.

i double dog dare your to check it out. This story is not going away. It is talked about as the biggest hoax ever and it will be the undoing of the lefts climate agenda.

So I was just searching the internet for some information about how the science is constructed since obviously we weren't around for all these thousands of years to record the temperature. This is what I found.

Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a very good point from the wikipedia article addressing the limitations of assumption based theories in bold:

Limitations
The apparent differences between the quantitative and qualitative approaches are not fully reconciled. The reconstructions mentioned above rely on various assumptions to generate their results. If these assumptions do not hold, the reconstructions would be unreliable. For quantitative reconstructions, the most fundamental assumptions are that proxy records vary with temperature and that non-temperature factors do not confound the results. In the historical records temperature fluctuations may be regional rather than hemispheric in scale.
In a letter to Nature (August 10, 2006) Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed at the original title of their 1998 article: Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations (Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759–762; 1999) and pointed out more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article. The press release for the 1998 article [12] framed the uncertainty in terms of regional impacts.

It says that the best observed period is from 1850 to the present day, which is a very small window. If we wanted to know for sure that we are influencing the weather then we would have to know the exact trends of all previous weather. We don't. Or rather we say we do by studying tree rings. That seems like weak ground to be standing on. Are tree rings really a reliable and completely accurate source of recorded weather history? I doubt it.

[someguy]

I think you missed my point. I know all the internet info re this subject. What you need to read are the emails that have been authenticated as real and see for yourself just what the pro Gore/global warming "scientists" have to say. Its beyond clear they manipulated, ignored, teased, combined the data to support the alarmists left position. They LIED and instead of use science to find the truth, well they protected the theory they sold or actually Al Gore sold to the world. Now talk about an investigation just needing to be done. Why don't you forget defending your view and check out the emails. Amazingly enough there are emails between the Obama Climate ZAR so how blind are you.

i double dog dare your to check it out. This story is not going away. It is talked about as the biggest hoax ever and it will be the undoing of the lefts climate agenda.

Um... I think you are misunderstanding me.

What I was saying is that we only have documented weather records starting from 1850, and scientists think that they have developed a system of observing nature that can provide historical documented weather records beyond 1850. Now I say that these observations (tree rings etc.) are not 100 percent accurate, or even close to that. So to say that we know for a fact that the world has never seen the atmosphere warm up to this degree is unknown. And to say that Greenhouse Gases are the cause of this temperature increase is absurd if we don't know enough information to make that conclusion. And even if climate change were caused by Greenhouse Gases, why would our government be taking the measures they are taking, and not actually doing anything to fix the root problem?

[Hotspring 44]

"i double dog dare your"... (you) to provide link to the illegally obtained (Stolen) e-mails.

I think you missed my point. I know all the internet info re this subject. What you need to read are the emails that have been authenticated as real and see for yourself just what the pro Gore/global warming "scientists" have to say. Its beyond clear they manipulated, ignored, teased, combined the data to support the alarmists left position. They LIED and instead of use science to find the truth, well they protected the theory they sold or actually Al Gore sold to the world. Now talk about an investigation just needing to be done. Why don't you forget defending your view and check out the emails. Amazingly enough there are emails between the Obama Climate ZAR so how blind are you.

i double dog dare your to check it out. This story is not going away. It is talked about as the biggest hoax ever and it will be the undoing of the lefts climate agenda.

[handy]

A lack of education is a condition; ignorance is a choice.

Slightly off-topic, but can't let this go by...

You have this precisely backwards.

Ignorance is the given. Ignorance is not knowing. We are born ignorant. The more we learn, the more we know that we don't know. We die ignorant.

Stupidity, the refusal to learn, is a learned behavior.

[handy]

... best observed period is from 1850 to the present day, which is a very small window. If we wanted to know for sure that we are influencing the weather then we would have to know the exact trends of all previous weather. We don't. Or rather we say we do by studying tree rings. That seems like weak ground to be standing on. Are tree rings really a reliable and completely accurate source of recorded weather history? I doubt it.

Agreed. Hotspring also made the point regarding linear extrapolation, which seems to be one of our "stuck on stupid" tendencies in our ignorant attempts at "control".

Complex, self-organizing, self-error-correcting viable systems (think ants, or humans, or IT&T, or Earth, or.. ) are, at minimum, dynamic interplay of multiple, simultaneous differential equations with multiple variables.

We're not very good at those yet.

Our measurements at global scale have margins of error that are greater than our total input. Our two cents' worth vanishes without a trace or a hiccup. Earth, as a self-organizing system, adapts.

Control is inherent. The arrogance of ignorance that permits us the fantasy of somehow applying "control" from some "superior" position "outside" of the system, is the problem.

But it's okay. It's not the end of the world; it's just the end of "you". (-Spengler)

It may be hopeless, but it's not serious.

[Hotspring 44]

You have this precisely backwards.

I don't have it backwards from what I meant, I will clarify it.

Note that I did not put quotation marks around statement. It is precisely because I was saying it not quoting it.
Not everybody has access to a high quality education. But people choose to ignore things they don't want to deal with. In other words, people choose to ignore things which become available to them from time to time that would further their education. So in that sense, the lack of education is a condition that one can change by not being ignorant.
I did look up the word “ignorant”, and now I can understand why that statement was a little off. I probably should have said it more concisely, but I didn't. I guess I should have said: a lack of education is a condition and to ignore is a choice.
In certain circumstances, I think to ignore is a form of ignorance. BTW "proper" English, punctuation, and spelling, are not my best subjects. If it weren't for the word processor, everything I write would be virtually illegible.

Ignorance is the given. Ignorance is not knowing. We are born ignorant. The more we learn, the more we know that we don't know. We die ignorant.

The moment I die, I believe that I will ignore pretty much everything.

Stupidity, the refusal to learn, is a learned behavior.

I'm not sure about the stupidity part of that statement, but “the refusal to learn is a learned behavior”; I agree with the gist of that part of the statement. That is in part approximately what I meant.

Slightly off-topic, but can't let this go by...

You have this precisely backwards.

Ignorance is the given. Ignorance is not knowing. We are born ignorant. The more we learn, the more we know that we don't know. We die ignorant.

Stupidity, the refusal to learn, is a learned behavior.

[Dram]

A drams bit~volcano belch, alot of gas and 16,000 years ago huge ice dams were melting from global warming.

I say not only startdust are we made of but also volcano's, and seeing people erupting all the time I'm sure were all related and are hot inside and so warm things up. So lets learn more better the uses of fire...

and remember the last melt

https://www.hcn.org/issues/41.20/aft...m_medium=email

Let's see if I understand this bitter delusion correctly.

The top climatologists from 113 nations report to the United Nations that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows the current global warming is due to man's activities - but you think that somehow Al Gore's desire to sell out America is really what this global scientific 'conspiracy' is about?

Not only are the scientists from all over the world lying, you somehow know that the 'truth' is that sunspots are the culprit in cooling the earth, or heating it, or something... but that too is being covered up, in this case by the 'leftists who hate America' because they can't tax the sun...

That is very impressive. It borders on psychosis.

P.S. to Barry - You claim this a community of progressives, yet you allow all manner of hateful RW propaganda to hijack many of the discussions. What's up with that?

[podfish]

exactly right. There's no reason to think that the climate research is immune from severe methodological problems - even including cooked data, or more likely, "tweaked" models where the tweaks are individually difficult to justify. However, the whole process of scientific research incorporates a ton of checks and balances. Often people base attacks on scientific conclusions by questioning the quality of the "authorities". This may be because they themselves have too much reliance on authority in their own thinking. Science isn't a process of finding out who is the best authority and ceding decision making to him - it's a way to develop ideas based on examining evidence and creating experiments. It takes a lot of volume of both - so that's how the system should be able to overcome individual cases of fraud or incompetence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/s...21climate.html

You should check out this article, it goes over who the scientists are. Since they are prominent American and British climate researchers this could turn out to be a big deal. Let's just sit back and wait for this to unfold before we cling to our ideologies and reject any and all new information.

[Hotspring 44]

I received this... "go to Rush Limbaugh.com and look three.

B
On Nov 24, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Hotspring 44 @ WaccoBB wrote:



From: Hotspring 44
Category: WaccoTalk
Thread: 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'


"i double dog dare your"... (you) to provide link to the illegally obtained (Stolen) e-mails."
Note: the things colored in Orange are from one of my earlier posts.

...in my private e-mail & noticed it is not posted publicly here. That link just goes (directly) to a Google search engine in that website. which is in itself is NOT a "link" to the "illegally obtained (Stolen) e-mails". besides that, the links that were in that Google search engine that were there, I have already looked at and read several of them.
I don't quite understand why it was not publicly posted, but that's okay. I don't believe it's illegal enough to send somebody a link to the Rush Limbaugh search engine in a private e-mail, to be anywhere near concerned about breaking the law or to merely provide a link to the "illegally obtained (Stolen) e-mails" would be either. .
I read enough and saw that Fox news thing that was linked in this thread too as well as other news reports on the TV and radio to understand the gist of what happened. It's probably considered illegal for those e-mails to be posted on the Internet without permission from the authors on both sides. That being said, as I said before, I've seen and heard enough to know that certain media pundits and politicians to realize that they would rather blow things out of proportion then do any real objective investigative reporting.
I think they're so used to blowing things out of proportion and stretching them out of context they seem to lose there better judgment's at times and (they) think everybody else is like them in that respect..
they remind me of people that cap on everybody else and yet they can't take a joke when it's on them. In fact some of them spend so much of their own personal energy doing that they appear to be geniuses to some people. me personally, I don't think they're geniuses. I think they're basically self-centered opinionated people that got themselves into positions in the media and politics by selling themselves. okay I admit one thing, some could be a "genius", but almost anybody can be trained to sell a used car.
that Guy Rush Limbaugh reminds me of somebody that beats a dead horse for an audience because he can't handle a live one., the audience on the other hand, makes me wanna:barfonu:!

busyb555 wrote: [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/SH/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] I think you missed my point. I know all the internet info re this subject. What you need to read are the emails that have been authenticated as real and see for yourself just what the pro Gore/global warming "scientists" have to say. Its beyond clear they manipulated, ignored, teased, combined the data to support the alarmists left position. They LIED and instead of use science to find the truth, well they protected the theory they sold or actually Al Gore sold to the world. Now talk about an investigation just needing to be done. Why don't you forget defending your view and check out the emails. Amazingly enough there are emails between the Obama Climate ZAR so how blind are you. i double dog dare your to check it out. This story is not going away. It is talked about as the biggest hoax ever and it will be the undoing of the lefts climate agenda.

"i double dog dare your"... (you) to provide link to the illegally obtained (Stolen) e-mails.

[handy]

more good news from the Telegraph.UK:

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax – Telegraph Blogs

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 26th, 2009
143 Comments Comment on this article
Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.
ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.
The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.
Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.
Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.
The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.
Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.
For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.
Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it.

[Barry]

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/s...=1&ref=science

E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science

By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: November 30, 2009

If you have not delved into the thousands of e-mail messages and files hacked from the computers of British climate scientists, let me give you the closest thing to an executive summary. It is taken from a file slugged HARRY_READ_ME, which is the log of a computer expert’s long struggle to make sense of a database of historical temperatures. Here is Harry’s summary of the situation:

Aarrggghhh!

That cry, in various spellings, is a motif throughout the log as Harry tries to fight off despair. “OH [EXPLETIVE] THIS!” he writes after struggling to reconcile readings from weather stations around the world. “It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. ...”

Harry, whoever he may be, comes off as the most sympathetic figure in the pilfered computer annals of East Anglia University, the British keeper of global temperature records. While Harry’s log shows him worrying about the integrity of the database, the climate scientists are e-mailing one another with strategies for blocking outsiders’ legal requests to see their data.

While Harry is puzzling over temperatures — “I have that familiar Twilight Zone sensation” — the scientists are confidently making proclamations to journalists, jetting to conferences and plotting revenge against those who question the dangers of global warming. When a journal publishes a skeptic’s paper, the scientists e-mail one another to ignore it. They focus instead on retaliation against the journal and the editor, a project that is breezily added to the agenda of their next meeting: “Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

As the scientists denigrate their critics in the e-mail messages, they seem oblivious to one of the greatest dangers in the climate-change debate: smug groupthink. These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause.
Consider, for instance, the phrase that has been turned into a music video by gleeful climate skeptics: “hide the decline,” used in an e-mail message by Phil Jones, the head of the university’s Climatic Research Unit. He was discussing the preparation of a graph for the cover of a 1999 report from the World Meteorological Organization showing that temperatures in the past several decades were the highest of the past millennium.

Most of the graph was based on analyses of tree rings and other “proxy” records like ice cores and lake sediments. These indirect measurements indicated that temperatures declined in the middle of the millennium and then rose in the first half of the 20th century, which jibes with other records. But the tree-ring analyses don’t reveal a sharp warming in the late 20th century — in fact, they show a decline in temperatures, contradicting what has been directly measured with thermometers.

Because they considered that recent decline to be spurious, Dr. Jones and his colleagues removed it from part of the graph and used direct thermometer readings instead. In a statement last week, Dr. Jones said there was nothing nefarious in what they had done, because the problems with the tree-ring data had been openly identified earlier and were known to experts.

But the graph adorned the cover of a report intended for policy makers and journalists. The nonexperts wouldn’t have realized that the scariest part of that graph — the recent temperatures soaring far above anything in the previous millennium — was based on a completely different measurement from the earlier portion. It looked like one smooth, continuous line leading straight upward to certain doom.

The story behind that graph certainly didn’t show that global warming was a hoax or a fraud, as some skeptics proclaimed, but it did illustrate another of their arguments: that the evidence for global warming is not as unequivocal as many scientists claim. (Go to nytimes.com/tierneylab for details.)

In fact, one skeptic raised this very issue about tree-ring data in a comment posted in 2004 on RealClimate, the blog operated by climate scientists. The comment, which questioned the propriety of “grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record,” immediately drew a sharp retort on the blog from Michael Mann, an expert at Penn State University:

“No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation Web sites) appearing in this forum.”

Dr. Mann now tells me that he was unaware, when he wrote the response, that such grafting had in fact been done in the earlier cover chart, and I take him at his word. But I don’t see why the question was dismissed so readily, with the implication that only a tool of the fossil-fuel industry would raise it.

Contempt for critics is evident over and over again in the hacked e-mail messages, as if the scientists were a priesthood protecting the temple from barbarians. Yes, some of the skeptics have political agendas, but so do some of the scientists. Sure, the skeptics can be cranks and pests, but they have identified genuine problems in the historical reconstructions of climate, as in the debate they inspired about the “hockey stick” graph of temperatures over the past millennium.

It is not unreasonable to give outsiders a look at the historical readings and the adjustments made by experts like Harry. How exactly were the readings converted into what the English scientists describe as “quality controlled and homogenised” data?
Trying to prevent skeptics from seeing the raw data was always a questionable strategy, scientifically. Now it looks like dubious public relations, too.

In response to the furor over the climate e-mail messages, there will be more attention than ever paid to those British temperature records, and any inconsistencies or gaps will seem more suspicious simply because the researchers were so determined not to reveal them. Skeptical bloggers are already dissecting Harry’s work. As they relentlessly pore over other data, the British scientists will feel Harry’s pain:

Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.