Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

[Raz]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

There is actually nothing in the leaked material that changes any of the evidence of climate change.

There is a big difference between the scientific data that points to climate change and the models/speculation/predications of what that means to the future.

Nothing inconsistant at all here, for those capable of reason.

Al Gore is a politician and takes scientific data and sensationalizes it and creates predications of the future, just as the GOP does, just as wall street analysts do, just as most economists paid for by politicians do as well - green shoots.

Fox News watching retards are still proving that they retards. LOL.

I watch Fox news, Mulaman. I suggest you take two aspirin and drop dead.
(Or in the alternative, take a flying leap in a rolling doughnut.)

In case you haven't gotten the message, or it isn't clear, I've had a GUT FULL of your insults and monumental stupidity. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

[MulaMan]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

You folks are falling for the same game over and over. So what does that make you? Retarded is most accurate explanation I can think of. It is accurate. LOL.

Why do you so want to believe Fox News and what big industry, in this case oil & gas industry, tells you right before a huge climate summit?

It is exactly as retarded as the 9-11 consipracy people and the JFK consipracy, ....

Are you really not able to see the similar strategy guys like Karl Rove pulled on you multiple times prior to elections and votes on key political issues? Swift boat retards. LOL

The only reason to watch Fox News is to see what the current smear campaign is / GOP talking points are.

Once the truth gets sorted out, the scientific facts will still be there, the climate predications of the future will still be predications and pure speculation, but the hope is that the noise does not clear up until after the climate summit.

Al Gore is the new "Clinton" for the GOP, not a big fan of either Gore nor Clinton, but everytime Al Gore gets rolled out then you know the GOP is rolling out a Fox News campaign.

**********************************************
"It is right before the Copenhagen debate, I'm sure that is not a coincidence," Trenberth said in a telephone interview from Colorado.
At least 65 world leaders will attend the Copenhagen climate summit in December as representatives of 191 nations seek agreement on a new global treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.
Trenberth, a lead author on the 2001 and 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, said he had found 102 of his own e-mails posted online. "I personally feel violated," he said. "I'm appalled at the very selective use of the e-mails, and the fact they've been taken out of context."
In one of the stolen e-mails, Trenberth is quoted as saying "we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
He said the comment is presented by skeptics as evidence scientists can't explain some trends that appear to contradict their stance on climate change. Trenberth explained his phrase was actually contained in a paper he wrote about the need for better monitoring of global warming to explain the anomalies — in particular improved recording of rising sea surface temperatures.
In another e-mail posted online, and unrelated to Trenberth, the British research center's director, Phil Jones, wrote that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood. He said in a statement Saturday that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...gtiBwD9C4OSH03

[reallife]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

This entire epidode: the emails and the responses here and elsewhere have been fascinating. Global warming is still being studied by observation and modelling. 'Global warming' is actively debated within the scientific community and within the lay community. Unfortunately, the lay community is largely uneducated when it comes to science and mathematics. Personal opinions, shouted at the top of the lungs, can more easily pass for knowledge and science. Science works very slowly. Opinions are instantaneous. The questions about global warming, climate instability, mass extinctions, 'peak' cheap oil and uranium, economic collapse of industrial culture and all the other controversial questions of the 'age' will be answered long after we are all gone. In the meantime, I suggest everyone pursue scientific knowledge over opinion with a discriminating eye. :rolleyes:

[Master Shake]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

Personal opinions, shouted at the top of the lungs, can more easily pass for knowledge and science.

Sounds like you're describing the AGW True Believers in the scientific community. ;)

[reallife]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

Sounds like you're describing the AGW True Believers in the scientific community. ;)

Real science precludes 'true believers'. :rolleyes:

[Raz]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

Just solved the "MulaMan problem". Thank heavens for the Ignore List.

Hope everyone else enjoys his vacuous insults!

[Master Shake]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

Real science precludes 'true believers'. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Which is why the AGW crowd are not real scientists. They are the Trofim Lysenkos of our time.

[reallife]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

Exactly. Which is why the AGW crowd are not real scientists. They are the Trofim Lysenkos of our time.

Is your statement a fact or an opinion?? LOL :eek:

[c1ue]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

Whatever the RC sock puppet or Mullet Man are saying, I'll repeat that the trove of internal emails is damning because they at least partially validate numerous criticisms which the 'deniers' have been saying for some time:

1) Data was/is being manipulated to show desired results.

Whatever excuse is used for 'trick' - what's the excuse for 'hide'? What about the excuse for milking?

2) Those scientists with views different than CO2/forcing/AGW are being personally and professionally attacked.

If it is all about the facts and science - why then attack those who even agree that there is AGW, but don't agree with the CO2 party line? What is the scientific basis for marshalling groups of 'obedient' scientists to deny papers from peer review, to exclude from IPCC, etc etc?

3) Scientific data which was compiled using government/public funds is deliberately being withheld from both legal and scientific requests.

What is the possible scientific rationale for finding ways to circumvent FOI requests? What is the scientific rationale for requesting emails to be deleted? What is the scientific rationale for preventing anyone outside the cabal to see the work you did?

4) Supposed objective scientists are actively lobbying government/legislators in concert with NGO's like Greenpeace and the WWF.

What again is the scientific rationale for allying with interest groups?

If acceding to the interests of Exxon is bad, how then is acceding to an NGO's desires good? Both Exxon and WWF/Greenpeace are clearly entities with specific interests. In fact requests were made specifically by the WWF to have the IPCC issue a stronger (i.e. more cataclysmic) report.

5) Counterpoints by 'deniers' are internally acknowledged by the cabal

The various cooling/warming trends in the 20th century, the MWP, etc etc are all mentioned as not just being in existence but as being dangerous counterpoints against which arguments must be presented - far from being 'crank' theories.

While I don't necessarily agree that the ruffians involved in these emails are a deliberate conspiracy to defraud - on the other hand it is quite clear that these individuals have an agenda.

When supposed objective scientists instead are going out of their way to create evidence for and to validate their beliefs - it puts EVERYTHING they publish into doubt.

This type of behavior is in fact more typical of creationists. Creationists don't seek to disprove evolution specifically; they seek to prove that the Bible and their religious belief is correct. Since evolution is in direct opposition, evolution must be attacked.

That these scientists have been doing this work for 40 years is equally irrelevant. Creationism in fact has been going on for thousands of years.

The additional specific data concerning funding details - $1M+/year for just Phil Jones - plus the emails concerning seeking of funds also build toward another 'denier' viewpoint: that the AGW/CO2 movement itself has become an industry.

The comments that the AGW/CO2 movement are too mainstream - i.e. too much money to be made - and thus it is too late to be derailed may well prove to be true.

But nonetheless the revelations that the scientific foundation for this movement in fact is rotten is still worth knowing.

And in knowing - the need for radical action in support of an issue with ever more clearly non-settled science is less.

[reallife]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

I agree that the hacked posts are pretty damning for those involved. Pretty stupid stuff. Their data is suspect and needs to see the light of day. But science moves incrementally and repetitiously. One group's suspect data can be independently reevaluated and might be validated or it might not be validated. Only a fool would hang their hat on one study or one group of researchers, no matter what their results claim. The global warming/climate instability/climate change issue isn't going away because of these hacked emails. The science will continue to evolve and models refined in the coming decades. Their will be plenty of new data to study.

Human nature being what it is will result in the burning of all available fossil fuels, as rapidly as possible. CO2 will continue to rise far into the future. The human growth engine cannot be stopped through political or voluntary means. The growth engine will only stop when limits to growth become insurmountable.

[Raz]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

I agree that the hacked posts are pretty damning for those involved. Pretty stupid stuff. Their data is suspect and needs to see the light of day. But science moves incrementally and repetitiously. One group's suspect data can be independently reevaluated and might be validated or it might not be validated. Only a fool would hang their hat on one study or one group of researchers, no matter what their results claim. The global warming/climate instability/climate change issue isn't going away because of these hacked emails. The science will continue to evolve and models refined in the coming decades. Their will be plenty of new data to study.

Human nature being what it is will result in the burning of all available fossil fuels, as rapidly as possible. CO2 will continue to rise far into the future. The human growth engine cannot be stopped through political or voluntary means. The growth engine will only stop when limits to growth become insurmountable.

Thanks for your post, reallife.
You see things for what they are, without the utopian dreams.;)

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

Denninger has a nice take on this. Based on his technical background as someone who owned and ran an ISP, he feels the emails are genuine.

Full article here: http://market-ticker.denninger.net/a...ther-Look.html

Excerpt here:

"I have long argued that the major problem with so-called "published papers" on global warming is that it is rare to see find measurement uncertainties reported in the alleged findings, and competing studies have cited wildly different values for the same thing (e.g. atmospheric CO2 emitted by man per year.) I believe we can now deduce why those uncertainties are missing - they are not being carried through the computational process as is required for any scientific calculation and this omission is in fact intentional.
This is, quite literally, first-semester college physics (or chemistry, or any other "hard" science.) If you turn in an answer to the question "How long is that ruler?" that reads "12 inches" you get a zero.
The scientist says "12 inches +/- 0.1 inch", reflecting the limits of his measurement. The carrying through of uncertainties is essential to hard science, as only from that process can one compute the statistical bands of probability that the result reported is actually the result in the real world.


Uncertainties in measurement are additive - that is, if I measure two rulers and each is reported as "12 inches +/- 0.1 inch" then the total length of the two rulers is 24 inches +/- 0.2 inch - because it is possible that both errors were on the same side.
When one performs complex mathematical functions on input data uncertainties must also be carried through the mathematical functions. Without that we know nothing about the quality of the result - it is entirely possible, given data with enough noise in it, to produce what looks like a perfectly valid answer but have it be absolute trash and of no value at all.


The only way to know if that is possible is for all measurements to be reported with their uncertainties attached, and for all uncertainties to be carried through all computational processes.


It is quite clear, from the data sets I have looked at, that this is simply not being done. Instead computations are being "fudged" to fit data to expected previously claimed results and/or data sets simply discarded or modified that do not fit with either previously-published numbers or desired outcomes. Here's just one example from the comments in the files:

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

OH F**K THIS. 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, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

This, by the way, is exactly the (intentional) "error" that was made by the "ratings agencies" and banks when it came to securitized debt that had "less than fully-verified income and assets" as a component. Uncertainties on the reported income and assets were never determined from experimental sampling and carried through the computational process. If they had been then the outcomes that we have actually seen would have been predicted within the range of possible outcomes for this debt. Instead, the issued securities were rated "AAA" because the agencies did not apply an uncertainty to each of the alleged reported numbers. That's what happens when you ignore the scientific method - you put garbage into a computation, you get garbage back out and it is impossible for an outside observer to detect that you did so because you refuse to give him the uncertainties associated with your claimed "measurements"!


Some of the guys working on this stuff appear to be genuinely trying to clean up other people's trash. But trash in produces trash out, and if you can't successfully defend the statistical integrity of the data going into your computational models you have nothing.
This leaves me with one final question: since we have emails now apparently documenting an attempt to "paper over" temperature decreases in recent years, and we also have claims of "lost" data, one wonders - was the data really lost, or was it intentionally deleted or withheld from other researchers who asked for it, as providing it would show that measurement uncertainties were not carried through computationally - and if they were, the claimed results in the so-called "peer reviewed" paper would be impossible to validate?

Without hard proof of whatever answer is propounded to that question we as the people of this planet must insist on a full stop for all purported "climate amelioration" efforts, as there is every possibility that the entirety of this so-called science in fact proves exactly nothing, except that the so-called "researchers" have added much CO2 to the atmosphere producing the electricity required to power their computers!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and from the released set of data that proof is, quite simply, not present and accounted for."

[Jay]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

It really became clear to me when I found out that Gore was a global cooling advocate in the 70's.

[gnk]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

Proving just as dubious a theory as "Global Cooling".

Funny how those in power will "TILT" the science to support what ever agenda they are trying to advance at the time.

Man, I guess they REALLY think we are THAT STUPID.

(IMHO, Global Warming was chosen as a way to address the realities of Peak Cheap Oil and engender public support for the policies that that reality requires. Can't we just do the ******* RIGHT THING FOR THE RIGHT ******* REASON, Is that TOO DAMN MUCH TO ASK!)

*******-A, don't treat people as adults when you can treat them as children, right? (Gee, wonder why people are pissed the fuck-off)

If this is true, then I agree with the Peak Oil ulterior motive. Governments cannot discuss Peak Oil publicly. The consequences could be immediate - market corrections, rampant commodities speculation, and more importantly resource wars amongst the powers.

But before we lambast the leftist environmentalists - let's not forget the right wing warhawks.

Whereas the left wing tree huggers in the know about Peak Oil want to address oil consumption by possibly creating an environmental danger, the rightwing warhawks prefer a war on terror and chasing weapons of mass destruction - which coincidently takes place in the world's largest oil producing region. The rightwing warhawks focus on oil production, the left wing tree huggers focus on oil consumption.

Just a theory - but the fact that oil is the underlying issue addressed by both AGW and WMDs makes me think it's not that far off.

[MulaMan]

Re: Global Warming Scam Uncovered by Hacker

This Gavin person does a great job of showing how retarded these anti-global warming retards really are -

Read the comments where he answers all the retarded questions over and over and over and over and over....oh my friken' god how painful..this guy deserves a Nobel Prize...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...comment-143886

This is a continuation of the last thread which is getting a little unwieldy. The emails cover a 13 year period in which many things happened, and very few people are up to speed on some of the long-buried issues. So to save some time, I’ve pulled a few bits out of the comment thread that shed some light on some of the context which is missing in some of the discussion of various emails.

• Trenberth: You need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.
• Wigley: The concern with sea surface temperatures in the 1940s stems from the paper by Thompson et al (2007) which identified a spurious discontinuity in ocean temperatures. The impact of this has not yet been fully corrected for in the HadSST data set, but people still want to assess what impact it might have on any work that used the original data.
• Climate Research and peer-review: You should read about the issues from the editors (Claire Goodess, Hans von Storch) who resigned because of a breakdown of the peer review process at that journal, that came to light with the particularly egregious (and well-publicised) paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003). The publisher’s assessment is here.

Here are some more reasonable explanations vs. some consipracy amongst scientists. LOL!

The American Denial of Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

The Denial Machine
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811&q=denial+machine#


It will be interesting to see if this "hacker" gets arrested and convicted of a federal crime - it should be quite possible to track down the individual / group if the desire to do so exists.