Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I flagged your post because you've presented the best possible case for the Church of Climatology. However, just like the 9/11 debunkers do, you have basically debunked the emails firstly by pointing out false assumptions made by pundits, and then by following up in part by saying... yeah some parts of these emails are true... but its no big deal.

When Tom Wigley stated he "can't account for the lack of warming" he was in fact talking about global warming... and you even state this in your very own video that is supposed to be dunking the claim. You admit when Tom Wigley said "lack of warming" in fact he really did mean lack of global temperature warming. And yes while he even published a paper about it... but not nearly so bluntly. So yes, the the pundits are stretching it out by the implication that this was some secret he was keeping. But that does not take away from the fact that this is still news to them because they in fact did not know about all these doubts Tom Wigley was having that he made exceptionally clear in his email but not quite as clear in his paper. So yes you can accuse them of over-reacting but the fact remains that Tom Wigley, climate researcher, was questioning what was going on with all the cooling. And as you mention regarding the sun cycle I am kind of surprised he couldn't easily reference the sun cycles as a cause, but thats going off-topic.

Later on in the video you displayed a very important email... on in which Tom Wigley makes it abundantly clear that he believes he is an objective and by implication highly ethical person. And that in fact is a good point. A very good point. But when he shows that he finds the lack of ability to account for global warming as "a travesty" that is a suggestion of moderate strength (though not bullet-proof) that he has an extreme bias to want to reach a specific conclusion. You could argue he meant it was a travesty he was so inept as to not be able to find the answers, but it seems, at least in my opinion and the opinion of most, to mean its a travesty that he isn't able to reach the conclusions that he wants to using the available data sets.

Then there is lastly the tree-ring data email which you actually confuse me quite a lot about. The email mentions what you refer to as a "decline in tree ring data since the 1950's". This implies your interpretation of the email is that it speaks of data suggesting temperatures have been declining since the 1950's. But then you state it would have no impact on global temperature data. Well it would, or it wouldn't be any concern of a scientist who's job is researching global warming. They wanted to use the tree ring data to extrapolate GLOBAL temperature warming data. So in fact I believe the tree ring data is all about determining the rise and fall of global temperatures, rather than believing tree-ring data was about local temperatures... a point which would be of concern to local ecologists but not so much to global climatologists.

You say the tree-ring data was about "whether tree rings could be used to re-construct pre-industrial climate". They only wanted to re-create local climate data for specific areas, but then not extrapolate that into the global temperature trend and relate it to the global warming data as I've been lead to believe by commentators who seem to paint these people as global climate trend researchers? At the very least you admit the "lack of warming" email was in fact talking about lack of global warming. But with the tree-ring data email I question whether that was only about local weather histories. So I'd be interested if you have any additional evidence that would limits the use of this data to local ecologists and suggests the scope of the research was for local use only.

OP and a few others, I'll tell you what.

I'll give you and your kind a solution to make you feel better.

We will set up rules and laws so you can win the debate.

You shall, give up no less than 40% of your income, and 25% of your net worth starting on some special day in Jan. that co-insides with some crap or another from the elite.
You shall, give up all forms of motor vehicles and they will be set aside for later destruction via Monster Truck or large mine equipment.
Your utilities shall be four fold.
You must never eat meat again. Good luck with the protein level and your doc.

Your shall have a fart filter installed to rid you of any quilty pleasures you might have.

You shall be chipped and your whole body dipped into a green solution so that you can make your stand as a separate race on earth.

Seriously, OP and buddies.

Have you ever even planted a tree before?

Try it, they are free, fun and natural.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I am arguing nothing of the sort there spanky. I am saying there is a bunch of information getting ignored while everyone screams "FRAUD" at the tops of their lungs.

Fraud is an intent to deceive. The documents that I linked explain what they were doing and why. When pulling averages from multiple sources you can have a source under shade, a source on a tall freight liner, a source directly on the water etc. etc.. At any given time not all would be reporting back, some could even report impossible data.

The modifications are for homogeneous data. Not for deception.

I'm not sure where exactly I stand in this debate, nor am I a scientist (not even close), but it sure does sound like you are saying the following;

:We've collected data from lots of different sources...
:We are looking for data that proves, or is consistent with, Global Warming/Climate Change
:Some/many of those sources are giving us results which disagree (to varying degrees) with that proposal
:We then 'smooth' out that data, to bring it into line with the data that's acceptable, by ignoring, changing, or adjusting the data to more 'reasonable' values.

I hate to say it ... but if that's not cooking the books, I don't know what is.

Whether it's done as normal procedure to facilitate the process when creating graphs, or deliberately to give you the result you wanted in the first place, it still smacks of manipulating data to suit your needs ... something I believe is generally considered to be very unscientific.

.... then again, I could have totally misread what is being said

I myself am a very scientific minded person. I study physics and know a great deal about matter, and this universe. I know things others don't even know about our universe, I am just not in a position to publish the findings.

Sorry but I was following the entire thread until I read this. What are you God or something? Seriously, I doubt you know anything about the universe, let alone "things that other humans do not". LOL

I can zap lightning bolts out of my fingertips, but I'm not in a position to do it publicly.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by Temperamental69]

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

www.timesonline.co.uk...

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination
WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU?

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails ,



[edit on 083131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

I think wheather MMGW is fact or fiction it should not matter. We should all strive to have a cleaner world with clean energy. I think we could realise this dream.

The trouble is were all being scammed and there trying to use science to get away with it. They will make up the data to get there way and support there scam.

We dont need to cripple the world with taxes but what we do need is someone to look at this whole subject objectively.

We need all the great ideas that have been suppressed over the last few decades to be set free so we can have the clean energy.

I think everyone agree that we should reduce our pollution but I think the picture they paint is false. That said it does not mean we should continue to pollute.

Peace

It would seem that Allinone (and Climate changers) have the supreme knowledge we lack.

Scientific Method is nearly dead folks. My wife went in for a sleep study. Long story made short, I questioned the "doctor" about the test methods and her use of scientific method.... I recieved "deer in headlights" look.

Originally posted by j2000
OP and a few others, I'll tell you what.

I'll give you and your kind a solution to make you feel better.

We will set up rules and laws so you can win the debate.

You shall, give up no less than 40% of your income, and 25% of your net worth starting on some special day in Jan. that co-insides with some crap or another from the elite.
You shall, give up all forms of motor vehicles and they will be set aside for later destruction via Monster Truck or large mine equipment.
Your utilities shall be four fold.
You must never eat meat again. Good luck with the protein level and your doc.

Your shall have a fart filter installed to rid you of any quilty pleasures you might have.

You shall be chipped and your whole body dipped into a green solution so that you can make your stand as a separate race on earth.

Aww, are you sad about cap and trade?

Why don't you get off your butt and remove yourself from the carbon system, it's not that hard.

Originally posted by felonius
It would seem that Allinone (and Climate changers) have the supreme knowledge we lack.

Scientific Method is nearly dead folks. My wife went in for a sleep study. Long story made short, I questioned the "doctor" about the test methods and her use of scientific method.... I recieved "deer in headlights" look.

You're right. Every scientist everywhere must be corrupting the scientific method. Let's outlaw science, refuse to publish any scientific work because it's all tainted with an agenda obviously, and just rabidly follow whatever big oil wants us to do.

Unless we need scientific data to prove an ideological point. We could probably let a scientist or two out of prison to take data on the other planets in the solar system, and if that data showed a warming trend, then we can claim that science in this situation is good because it supports our predefined ideological beliefs.

Originally posted by UFOabducteebe
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

Question Does it really matter what they are hiding/lying about, tree-trunks or nay, aren't scientists that intentionally hide data dishonest and mis-practicing science?

Answer: IF they were truly able to do what scientists should do - which is present and try explain meaning of data - they will present ALL data they collect, and explain why certain data is erroneous - that is how SCIENCE works - you should show all your data - and if any is anomalous you state it and why, - and it is the job of the scientific community at large to decide whether or not the reasoning is logical or flawed in any way.

It's madness to say - forget the hammer - let's just brush it under the carpet. GEE MAN!! So it's okay because it's a tree trunk data that is being hidden?? (hah!) Justifying that certain data is 'unimportant' is dangerous, and not scientific - any scientists knows they *should* include it in their research, otherwise it can only be partial - that's not science - thats a dictate.

The fact that disinformation agents on this site, specifically ignore the fact of the matter . Science isn't science when it intentionally hides data from the analysis and peer review process - is not only dishonest - it's NOT SCIENCE.

Worse still, it shows intellectual inability to describe the process, which means most importantly of all it MUST BE OUT in the community for further analyses/debunking.

Negligence has probably been committed, somewhere IMO.

The only thing that is left for disinformation agents on this site to do now, is to ignore my statements, and attack my personal credibility.

Go ahead!!! Here's a doosie for you -

IS CLIMATE CHANGE INFORMATION ALL PUBLIC? Then how can it actually be scientific in the first place? Oh, yeah! that's right! It NEVER has been.

Abductee.


[edit on 5-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

Hey AllisOne, please feel free to continue spouting your rather propagandist and rude misinformation, and , please, do feel free to ignore my valid questions, and cherry pick the 'biggest morons' that you can tell to 'SHUT UP', yup - because an intellectuals and scientists do EXACTLY that don't they?

Oh, Oh wait... no.. they don't.

Here's an opportunity for you to pick on someone with half a brain, with some valid questions of his own - instead of your intellectually lacking and derogetory insults.

The first lessons I learnt as a 7 year old, was this; people who cannot be honest or are not able to debate fairly nearly always will resort to insults, name calling and telling people to 'shut up'


Quite ironic really, isn't it? That's like idiot say tomato, and you say tomato too; That doesn't wash with me.

And - this isn't new either - I'm sure. Please though, stop pretending otherwise name calling is lowering yourself into a place that is not science or intellectual - it's just.. well meaningless - at least to SCIENCE. Always it is the same half-witted intellectual of people holding accusation of their peers of an identical crime. There is a word for that I'm sure, but It's certainly not science , it's silly - and that wasn't a petite insult chap, I'm sticking to the facts intentionally here, because many people don't - and that is where disinformation agents come in and reap real evils. The evils of emotional lashing out - please, when arguing science, why not refrain from them and find what is good in this I know I would and it has served me well, and most importantly, other people too .


Peace!
UA


[edit on 5-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

reply to post by Avenginggecko

Why don't you get off your butt and remove yourself from the carbon system, it's not that hard.

Really? Why not enlighten us?

I suppose I could grow a garden for food (wait, actually I do!), but there are some things I cannot grow locally, like citrus. Of course, I have to pay land taxes on the land I use to grow it, so since all my time is tied up in feeding myself, when do I have time to work enough to get the tax money?

I suppose I could raise a horse to pull a wagon so I could get to town for essentials I cannot grow in my garden... but then the trip would take a full day instead of a couple hours. And that's a day I can't work in the garden. Not to mention, I don't see many hitching posts outside stores any more. And where do I get the money to buy the things I need? Do you recommend I steal them or something?

Electricity... well, maybe I could set up solar cells around my place... wait, so much of it is now in garden, where do I put them? And they certainly won't produce enough power to keep me in lights during the night. Back to the flashlight... oh, wait, I forgot batteries, and it will take a whole day to get new ones now, since I no longer use gasoline. I don't have any money to buy them with either, since I work full time growing food now. So the next time I need to go to the bathroom at night, I'll just stumble through the dark... maybe I can aim good enough to not totally disgust myself in the morning.

Oh, wait, what about electricity for cooking... has to be electric since we no longer are allowed to use heating oil or kerosene or natural gas. I have it! A wood fire! Oh, wait, that produces carbon dioxide more than oil. I guess I have to eat everything raw now... su much for growing cabbage or beans.

Forget showers. All the water I have now has to be carried home in buckets from a nearby spring or creek. So no more showers, and baths only every week or two. And those are ice cold, since I can't heat the water up.

I'm cold even without being wet. It is 34 degrees outside. It is 34 degrees inside, too. What to do, what to do? I can't use any hydrocarbons for heat. I can't burn wood for heat. Help me out here; how do I stay warm again?

It's one thing to say "don't use energy", but quite another thing to do it.

TheRedneck

funny how desprite some people are to beleive man made global warming. so sad.......

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I have to compare your thinking processes to be akin to a religious zealot, since you portray those characteristics in your postings, you leave me no choice. The devout priest always leans on the good book to support their arguments. When confronted with anthropomorphic creator theory, they make reference to "history" which has been stepped on in the written word by thousands, but it does not dissuade them, even when they admit the good book was written by man. All those people in between that rewrote sections of the good book for political or control gain, like a bad drug deal where the product has been "stepped on" by every dealer, the priest still professes that all were inspired by God to rewrite those passages for the good of man. Look at how many different religions and forms of religious book there are. Which one is right in just the christian faith?

The religion of Global warming is much the same, which theory is right? You can't tell if it's all based on lies, agendas and cooking the theories to match desired outcomes.

The situation appears very similar with you and your wishy washy non-admission of the state of affairs in politics, finance and the entire climategate debacle, "probably" is a non-answer. As well as the additional multiple planet warming problem who's key motivator can really only be in space, so it would appear to be the Sun or a gas cloud running these changes.

In any event climate change appears to be real. Is it man-made, possibly but we can't tell because the scientists are corrupt and have an agenda. Is it non-man-made, again, can't tell because the scientists are corrupt and have an agenda. Can we do anything about it by arbitrarily increasing the tax paid by us "little people" then throwing that money at the UN and making a one world totalitarian government? NO. Any money we throw at a political organization will be used for mismanagement, bribes and lining other peoples pockets, a very small amount will filter down to people that produce alternative energy sources. Paying a carbon tax to the UN is like a priest saying do 10 hail mary's or throw $20 in the plate and you'll be absolved. Your doing what you are told and giving money to the bogeyman promoter, who's just a middleman, who passes it out to other people over which you have no control. Is that tax a good investment? NO.

I refuse to see your God of AGW and until the UN, all political and financial agendas involved are removed, it will remain that way. There is no point in building more of our common future on lies.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/5.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
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.

Your credulity is mind-boggling. Do you just add-up the number of reports, weigh them, or pick the most attractive pictures in your "evaluations?"

The same faulty reasoning applies to the "consensus" that large planets cannot form within or beyond certain AUs, yet they do; or that the Earth is the center of the solar system/universe (take your pick), or that certain races are biologically inferior/superior to others, or that stomach ulcers were caused by excess acid secretion instead of bacteria, or that there are 6 or 9 planets in the solar system, or that Y2k would destroy our economy. All were the scientific consensus; all debunked BY A SMALL GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS. The list of the debunked "scientific consensus" is endless.

It just takes one scientist to debunk scientific consensus. Consensus is not scientific fact... it's just an opinion by a group.

Many who follow the "consensus" are no more than blind sheep.
(hint to OP: check mirror)

I bet you didn't even watch the videos.

You Tube as a "source" of reliable information? You've got to be 12 years old, intellectually bankrupt, or kidding.

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

And monkeys "could" fly out of ... . How can you possible expect to be taken seriously when your best response to reason and observation is speculation?

Get a clue.

Someone better, because you obviously don't have one.

What a worthless thread.

Deny ignorance.

jw

So I would like to start with, What a childish explanation. "well they're doing it too.", But more so in my view no matter the reality is. There has always been people throughout the times that have been yelling "The world is ending, but if you give me your money I can stop it." the simple math shows that, provided global warming is real, it would take 33 years to lower the temp by 1deg F if we stopped carbon emissions completely. Like not even having a camp fire to keep warm. Now all these cap and tax and carbon credits and the likes is only going to halt 1/10 of 1%.

reply to post by Raven Hemp


Yep they play on peoples ignorance and the fact they know they just need to say it on tv, and people believe it. Money and keeping control in the hands of the west is all i think gw is for.

Who is to think, what will they come up with in 2 hundred years to get peoples money.

There is just no logic to agw, but people just go with the mob.

Are we still doing this? Cmon, they've been caught lying! Its clear from their attitude toward "climate deniers" that they dont want to have a serious scientific debate. Nothing has been debunked here except for the MMGW HOAX!

Allisone,

I think we need a new name for these overzealous Church of Climatology fanatics. I vote for "Species Traitor." Unfortunately, we have to label the nutbars and dysfunctionals in society so we can spot them, maybe we could have them all tattooed and chipped like our dogs and cats? I mean seriously, we do want to know where they are so they don't hurt themselves or infrastructure through Species Traitor funded terrorism. Maybe we could even make a reservation for them and give them each a tree to hug. Or maybe we can put them in forced labour camps and they can plant trees all over the world or have group therapy sessions to support their collective delusions.

I dunno, sound like a plan?

Seriously though, these people are dangerous. Like the dirtbags ManBearPig or Maurice Strong (who I knew in the 90's), they tend to influence other delusionals of like mind in creating scenarios that are not based of facts, but more on "feelings" or agendas and the application of Bayer's Theorem. AGW HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, IT IS A THEORY (can you hear me now?) and the new Church of Climatology operates with the same religious fervor of the crusades and the dark ages. I would bet that if these AGW terrorists said that blue was red, they would fight public opinion, even knowing they were wrong. That's what happens in religious programming.

As far as the US, Canada's, EU, UN's and IPCC's involvement in this AGW scam acting as the IMF's puppets, when all this crap goes through, if it does, I am quite sure there will be blood. Even incrementally nickel and diming us to death will eventually catch up with these "loads their mama's should have swallowed" and when it does, I am pretty sure there is going to be a world wide revolt the likes of which this planet has never seen. Then we'll all be back to your dark ages, yehaw! If people didn't lie, fudge data, hide information, create desired outcomes based on fraud, play politics and try to control everything out of fear greed or avarice, this wouldn't be happening.

So think on what is happening allisone, give you head a shake, stop spouting nonsense and take the red pill for f***s sake and open your mind.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by ALLis0NE

The fact is, they have to stop humans from emitting CO2.

Do you even read what you post? All oxygen-based life emits CO2 in the ordinary course of 'business.'

The surest way is permanent, and pretty well takes care of the population explosion that John Holdren (Obama science czar, de-development advocate and AGW supporter) and the "scientific consensus" of the late 1970's would create worldwide famine and disaster before 2000.

You first.

jw


[edit on 5-12-2009 by jdub297]