Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

There is a great small series of videos regarding Climate Change on YouTube, and it covers a lot of issues.

A) A good majority of the video describes how both sides of the debate, the proponents and skeptics of man-made global warming have BOTH been modifying data, and or making incorrect statements, and messing with graphs for various reasons.

It shows how a majority of the skeptics are the ones who are jumping to conclusions and modifying data and lying about graphs much worse than anything supplied by the hacked e-mails.

B) It highlights many misconceptions about the reason for peoples thoughts about "global cooling" and a mythical coming of an Ice Age. It shows how media, and various other talking heads have talked about a coming Ice Age from incorrect data, and or wrongly quoting scientists.

C) It describes the reason for many peoples thoughts about the temperature in the past. People claim that CO2 levels were much higher, yet the Earth was much cooler in the past, and so CO2 has no effect on warming..... while they were totally ignoring solar irradiation levels and facts about the sun being much cooler in the past.

D) It highlights how there is more than one factor that governs our weather, and the Sun and CO2 are actually the most important of the factors. In my opinion it shows that CO2 IS a problem we must all face.

E) It completely debunks the hacked e-mails explaining that "hide the decline" was NOT talking about global temperatures, but about data obtained from the growth rings from a tree trunk. It also explains that the scientist from the hacked e-mails had already expressed the same concerns in public on the internet, and you didn't even need the hacked e-mails to see it.

It also brings up a good point about thoughts of the e-mails being faked. It shows how Rush L. thinks there is too many e-mails and it is too intricate to be faked, yet that would mean that Rush L. also thinks that thousands and thousands of graphs and data from thousands of scientists over many years was some how faked and or incorrect.

There is a lot more to these videos, and I hope you watch them all.

1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate


2. Climate Change -- the objections


3 - Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth


4 - Climate Change -- Gore vs. Durkin


5 - Climate Change -- isn't it natural?


6 - Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails


Earths weather is easily modified. Within the videos above is an example of weather changes made after 9-11. When the jets were grounded for 3 days after 9-11, our Earth made some interesting weather changes that have been linked to the contrails that jets make. It shows that jets alone have an effect on the weather. Imagine what else we do that effects our weather. Like the billions of vehicles for example.

In my opinion, denying that CO2 effects our weather, and denying that humans create enough CO2 to make a major change, is to deny basic science and records taken over the years by many different scientists, and to deny your own ability to figure it out on your own, and get the same conclusion.


en.wikipedia.org...

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]


The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.

I guess all of the above are "in on it", right? This conspiracy is almost as complex as 911.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

What a bunch of agitprop.

Dude.

Read this.

Software developer explains hacked climate model source code

The emails are a joke compared to the code.

This is a total fraud.

Allow me to "Debunk" your "debunking" as it pertains to "hide the decline".


While you are correct it pertains to tree-ring data, you are incorrect that this is a trivial matter.

The tree-ring proxy data was DELETED post 1960 in the code and in the charts that were released because it completely diverges from instrument readings at that time.

Such a massive divergence at the point when the tree-rings and instrument readings should be in close agreements INVALIDATES ALL THE PROXY DATA AS GARBAGE.

The scientists in question couldn't explain away the divergence so they hid it.

TOTAL FRAUD.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Your last two posts are a complete joke. You are just another person who ignores scientific data and the scientific process, and would rather believe a few crappy e-mails that do NOT even touch the amount of scientific data supporting man-made climate change.

I bet you didn't even watch the videos.

-edit to add-

The tree ring data could have dropped do to local changes, not global changes. There could also be many other factors... not just one.

Get a clue.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I don't see how the "hacked e-mails" could be debunked, the people that wrote them have even come out and said that they are authentic. The fact is the e-mails are just a 1/4 of what was leaked. The majority of the stuff that was leaked was code.

The code shows blatant fraud among the "climate clique". There is not enough data to conclude either way if AGW is happening or not. That is the facts. Tree rings do not make good thermometers and sediment samples also don't make good thermometers.

The "science" that has been conducted is not science at it has been people trying to fit the data to a pre-conceived conclusion. That is the facts.

Nobody said the e-mails were faked.... they could be legitimate. But all the claims saying that this proves everything is hoax and a fraud have been debunked".

You people read things like "hide the decline" and jump to conclusions that they are hiding "global cooling"..... that is FALSE, and DEBUNKED.

You people read e-mails that say "they had to pad the data while smoothing it" and you jump to conclusions and don't even consider the reasons for smoothing the data and how they effect the outcome.

The e-mails are describing "smoothing" issues in data. There are many reasons they "smooth" the graphs, why don't you read up on them. When you "smooth" graphs a lot of inconsistencies show up.

Think about it... say you have a graph with the exact amount of people that visited ATS every day over a month. To make the graph easier to read they "smooth" the graph and instead of showing every day, they show every few days. Well this will show "ups" and "downs" in the graph that aren't actually there....

This happens in foreign exchange trading all the time, I know from personal experience, and you can test it yourself. You choose different types of graphs, some smoother than others, and you will get direct conflicts between two graphs. They both show the same exact data, one just has more data than others, and the trends look completely different.

When you are comparing two different charts, both that have been smoothed, side by side, and your point of comparing the charts is to see how they relate to each other... the errors in smoothing will show declines and inclines that are not accurate.

All of you are jumping to conclusions! It is ridiculous! The e-mails are being misinterpreted.

The e-mails do NOT over power the thousands and thousands of scientific studies done over the years.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

I have no problem with the concept of global warming or cooling but certainly cow farts and SUVs don't melt the ice caps on other planets in our system. One must consider the common denominator, which might be the Sun. Go figure? It's a good idea to reduce resource consumption simply because it saves money and reduces the impact on the environment.

I take a bit of offense to the OP's claim that the weather is easily changed. Now that's patently bulls**t! I want to see the OP create a tornado or hurricane, or maybe a tsunami or change the wind direction or make the Toronto area warm for the winter. Otherwise, maybe the OP can make idiots fall from the sky, that's kind of weather I guess and pretty easy to do if you can charter a plane full of bankers and politicians.

But (and here's the rub) I think like most people following this information would agree, that forming a global government that taxes everyone even more than they already are, destroys sovereignty and constitutions, transfers wealth and technology to third world countries without compensation to the originators and provides for structured world wide enforcement is over the top.

AND it's all based on the IPCC and Anthropomorphic Climate Change models! The Copenhagen Treaty should die a miserable death and take the IMF, international bankers and politicians with it back under whatever rock it was spawned.

An environment protocol that destroys international bankers while making politicians perform for their constituents, increases personal freedoms and doesn't cost ridiculous amounts of graft while saving the environment is one that I can get behind.

So stop pushing the AGW crap, it isn't about climate change, it's about politics, otherwise all these politicians wouldn't be pushed so hard by the IMF and their puppet cronies to make a one world government.

Cheers - Dave

PS: For allisone above me here, there are 31000 scientists that dipute global warming, so what do we do with their reports, shred them like the original temperature data that was at the IPCC? I wish I knew for a fact that "everyone was misinterpreting emails," data and code and I knew for fact that "everyone was jumping to conclusions." That's a lot of psychic power there allisone, better be careful with it and not hurt yourself. Notice I didn't show this in a large font. Just because it's big don't make it true. As for the IPCC and the IMF, you can't fix stupid, or criminals, for that matter.

No polar bears or allegedly endangered species were harmed in the making of this post.

[edit on 12/4.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
I have no problem with the concept of global warming or cooling but certainly cow farts and SUVs don't melt the ice caps on other planets in our system. One must consider the common denominator, which might be the Sun. Go figure? It's a good idea to reduce resource consumption simply because it saves money and reduces the impact on the environment.

You obviously didn't watch the video either. Go figure....

There is more than one thing that effects our weather, the most extreme factors are the Sun and CO2 levels. This is a scientific FACT.

Did you even see the analogy of the fireplace and external heater in the house?

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

OMG !
It have taken the Skeptic scientists 10 to 15 years just to even get close to start a debate, and these emails are a 'closed case' within a frakking week ??

Talk about MAJOR whiteWashing campaign !!!

Al Gore said , The Debate is Over !!! What ? YEA , the Debate Is Over.... And there havent even been a SIGN of it even STARTING !!!!!!!

I AM MAJORLY PISSED OFF AT THIS !!!

The Co2 Man Induced Warming is a Fregging BULL# STORY, even worse than the BIBLE !!!

Al Gore is a ConMan, NOTHING MOREEEEEEEE ! CON MAN !!!!!!
Alll this # gotta freggn STOP.... DO NOT Waste time on this you Awaken ones, it is all an distraction , the Nopenhagen is real close...

We need to push this to the outmost Limits and real freggn fast..

I have NEVER in my entire LIFE seen so many Civilians DEFENDING criminals, NEVER !!! even with 100% fregging Proof !!

Brainwashing real or not? lets make 20 threads discussing it , while the brainwased ones clearly sticks out denying it all..

I do not care ONE BIT, if some of these emails means some thing else internally, they know their work is supposed to be available to others.

Scientists have been saying this for decades, and they get nowhere because of the Corruption that after this incident is EVERY WHERE !

Media is beyond doubt hijacked by these people too, or else they would do their Job and Expose the errors and man made fake data to the world.

The Media is just as corrupt and trust worthy as the Governments around the world, they are just stalling us by creating # they KNOW we are going to waste time on, just like 9/11 ,i t keeps half the world pre-occupied with 'who did it, I want to be the one who figures it out' , it was done for the purpose of 'side tracking' people, the same is happening with this 'explanations' to the emails, there is no way out of this, the mails PROVE manipulation and MUST be investigated... Before the Treaty is signed in CopenHagen..

Once The treaty is signed, there is NO way OUT of IT... It is Forever !!!

please take this more serious than just a couple of Emails, this treaty can NOT be retrackted....

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Look the thread title says "Hacked E-mails Debunked". The e-mails are impossible to debunk because they are true. What you are attempting in your thread title is mind games. You trying to equate that the e-mails are not true, when in fact they are.

The e-mails show them stacking the peer-review process, blackballing journals that publish "skeptical" papers, it shows them colluding to delete data, etc. Not to mention the most damaging thing to come out after these e-mails that add validity the actual context of the e-mails was when the CRU came out and said they deleted the raw-data and the only data that remains is "value-added" data.

Okay beyond all that, you can sit here and say the e-mails were "misinterpreted" all you want, but that does nothing to explain why the computer code is full of errors, and hard-coded adjustments, that alter that data to arrive at the pre-conceived conclusion that Man-Made Global Warming is real. I've read most of the e-mails for myself, and I have also looked over the code myself.

The code is FRAUDULENT there is no way around that. You can say whatever you want about the e-mails, but the fact of the matter is the computer code gives context to the e-mails and from the code we can conclude that the "trick" to "hide the decline" was to get rid of the inconvenient drop in temperature that didn't match their pre-conceived conclusion that Man is responsible for the earth warming.

The fact is what has been conducted is not "science" it is fraudulent activity in order to come to a pre-conceived conclusion that Man is Responsible for the earth Warming. That is the facts. The computer code PROVES it.

reply to post by mnemeth1


This is a reply to the "smoothing" and the "padding" graph issue brought up by your link.

Take a look at these two graphs of the EUR/USD exchange rates for December 1, 2009.

This is the 15 minute chart for 1/12/2009:

This is the 1 hour chart for 1/12/2009:

Both charts are of the SAME exact data. However, the 15 minute chart shows a HUGE DECLINE, but on the 1 hour chart there is a much smaller decline. This is because the hour chart is "smoother".... If I wanted to accurately show the decline in the hour chart, I would have to "pad" it a little.

When you smooth data, and then you average the data, there will be inclines and declines that aren't really there.

What the scientist in the e-mail is doing, is comparing two different charts that have both been smoothed. They compare them to see how they relate to each other. If one goes up, they would like the other to go up in the same section. If one goes down, the other should show a down in the same space. This would mean they both are linked together...

However, when you smooth the graphs, and then average them, the ups and downs are different from reality. One chart may show a down, and the other an up in the same day, but that isn't accurate representation.


It's very hard to explain, unless you are familiar with creating graphs. It could cause a lot of confusion for all of you....

However I have had to create many graphs programmatically with C++, and I know the issues with smoothing. It doesn't represent ALL of the data, so some ups and downs will look different.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
I have no problem with the concept of global warming or cooling but certainly cow farts and SUVs don't melt the ice caps on other planets in our system. One must consider the common denominator, which might be the Sun. Go figure? It's a good idea to reduce resource consumption simply because it saves money and reduces the impact on the environment.

You obviously didn't watch the video either. Go figure....

There is more than one thing that effects our weather, the most extreme factors are the Sun and CO2 levels. This is a scientific FACT.

Did you even see the analogy of the fireplace and external heater in the house?

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

From what I have seen here, you have been well TOLD. If you want to post and debate something rational, I am game as I expect are many others on ATS ;-)

One thing I should mention is that allegedly there has been a 30% increase in global CO2 levels and guess what, we have a 30% increase in global deforestation it appears. So, if the bankers, corporations and politicians will supposedly control fixing the problem THAT THEY CREATED, would you trust them with your life and future, especially to an instrument such as the Copenhagen Treaty that gives them even more control and dictatorial powers without vote or consensus (as indicated in the UNFCCC)? I sure as hell wouldn't.

But as my mama always told me, be polite and don't enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed person ;-) Have fun on your journey!

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/4.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

[edit on 12/4.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

Look the thread title says "Hacked E-mails Debunked". The e-mails are impossible to debunk because they are true. What you are attempting in your thread title is mind games. You trying to equate that the e-mails are not true, when in fact they are.

Wow, you don't even know what you are talking about.

The issues regarding the e-mails are debunked. Not the validness of the e-mails.

I never once said the e-mails have been faked. The e-mails could very well be real.... It is the ISSUES with the e-mails that are debunked, because THERE IS NO ISSUES!

People claim data was hidden, but the data is found on the internet.

People claim they "hid the decline" but they really didn't hide anything.

It's all a big misconception that everyone and their mother is jumping on because it supports their belief system.

You all are being fooled by incorrect interpretations.

Well its obvious the only people replying so far are uninformed.

You all have been fooled!

Go follow your fellow sheep now.

OMG the NWO is out to get you! Run!

None of you even try to discredit MMGW with science. NONE OF YOU. That is because YOU CANT.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
What a bunch of agitprop.

Dude.

Read this.

Software developer explains hacked climate model source code

The emails are a joke compared to the code.

This is a total fraud.

Negative, the code is only indicative of intentional changes which are described via the organizations 1989 paper.

The changes are there to make the temperature readings fall in line due to averaging issues. The Thermostats are in a wide array of places: From ships of various heights to floaters, to land places.

The modifcations are in there to make the temperature averages fall in line with tree ring readings and to account for situational modifiers.

The paper was available here however they appear to have it down due to traffic atm. I will keep an eye on it and paste the paper when it becomes accessible again.

The interpretations of the code simply state "These are artificial modifications" some of the lines even state that directly. So, instead of looking at that and seeing "artificial" how about doing 10 minutes of searching to find WHY it was there. That paper clearly defined it.

I'm with Bob's uruncle. If you can't see the the blatant hypocrisy in your thread title to what the OP says then there is no point in trying to debate anything with you.

reply to post by lordtyp0


THANK YOU for understanding something that everyone else is being fooled by!

You are the only one who replied so far that understands what they are talking about. Thanks.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Well its obvious the only people replying so far are uninformed.

You all have been fooled!

Go follow your fellow sheep now.

OMG the NWO is out to get you! Run!

None of you even try to discredit MMGW with science. NONE OF YOU. That is because YOU CANT.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

It's pointless to debate or try and convince a religious fanatic of anything.

How's that working out for you?

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

Look the thread title says "Hacked E-mails Debunked". The e-mails are impossible to debunk because they are true. What you are attempting in your thread title is mind games. You trying to equate that the e-mails are not true, when in fact they are.

The e-mails show them stacking the peer-review process, blackballing journals that publish "skeptical" papers, it shows them colluding to delete data, etc. Not to mention the most damaging thing to come out after these e-mails that add validity the actual context of the e-mails was when the CRU came out and said they deleted the raw-data and the only data that remains is "value-added" data.

Okay beyond all that, you can sit here and say the e-mails were "misinterpreted" all you want, but that does nothing to explain why the computer code is full of errors, and hard-coded adjustments, that alter that data to arrive at the pre-conceived conclusion that Man-Made Global Warming is real. I've read most of the e-mails for myself, and I have also looked over the code myself.

The code is FRAUDULENT there is no way around that. You can say whatever you want about the e-mails, but the fact of the matter is the computer code gives context to the e-mails and from the code we can conclude that the "trick" to "hide the decline" was to get rid of the inconvenient drop in temperature that didn't match their pre-conceived conclusion that Man is responsible for the earth warming.

The fact is what has been conducted is not "science" it is fraudulent activity in order to come to a pre-conceived conclusion that Man is Responsible for the earth Warming. That is the facts. The computer code PROVES it.

It is obvious you do not understand the code or the situation. The code simply shows modifications. It does not address the reasons for the modification. That is what you are projecting onto it. I will track the document I was reading a few days ago, from the think tanks site. It was from 1989, it detailed the need of the modifications, which are not sinister.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


You don't know what you are talking about either.

The ISSUES with the e-mails have been debunked. It doesn't matter if the e-mails are real or fake, the issues regarding the e-mails have been debunked meaning there is no issues.

The e-mails are just being twisted around into something they are NOT. That is what is debunked, the twisting, and the misinterpretation.