Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

You can't debate me because I have thousands and thousands of scientists, and thousands and thousands of recorded data, and thousands of physics papers from many years ago, that support man made global warming.

All you have are misinterpreted hacked e-mails. You lose.

I will believe the data and the science over some uninformed insulting nobody that misinterprets e-mails.

The physics behind man-made global warming are REAL, and can not be disputed.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by lordtyp0


There is no point in debating with you either. Let me explain this for the last time.

The code manipulates the data to give the desired out-come. If you compiled and ran the code you would notice that it doesn't matter what information you input into the program it will always produce a hockey-stick type of graph. This is because the up-slope is hard-coded in the program.

Then then the other obvious problem is the fact that Tree-rings, are not thermometers. The other problem is that the "scientist" have refused to release the code and data so other people can verify their work. Then comes the major problem. The raw-data has been deleted, the only data that exist now is the "value-added" data.

There is no way for anybody to check the "scientist" work because the raw-data no longer exists at that facility. Instead now what has to happen is that people have to spend years recompiling the data from the various sources in order to reconstruct the raw temperature record.

The only thing that is obvious is the fact that you don't understand the scientific process.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Okay one challenge then, if Man-Made Global Warming is real, Prove it.

That is all I want you to do, just prove the Man-Made Global Warming is real. Show me a paper the presents the data, how the models were coded, what methods they used to arrive at their conclusions, and then I want to see the papers that the skeptics have written to verify that Man-Made Global Warming is real.

You are lying through your teeth right now, because there is not ONE paper in existence that says Man-Made Global Warming is real, they all say that there is a very high probability that Man-Made Global Warming is real.

And With this, I would like to direct your attention to this thread because that is exactly what is going on here, nothing more than religious zealotry.

My position stands, show me beyond doubt that Man-Made Global Warming is actually happening and then I will believe it.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
There is no point in debating with you either. Let me explain this for the last time.

There is no point in debating with you either, because for some reason you don't know what you are talking about. You have been fooled by your own ignorance.

You know nothing about graphs, or WHY someone would need to modify a graph.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

There is no point in debating with you either. Let me explain this for the last time.

The code manipulates the data to give the desired out-come. If you compiled and ran the code you would notice that it doesn't matter what information you input into the program it will always produce a hockey-stick type of graph. This is because the up-slope is hard-coded in the program.

Then then the other obvious problem is the fact that Tree-rings, are not thermometers. The other problem is that the "scientist" have refused to release the code and data so other people can verify their work. Then comes the major problem. The raw-data has been deleted, the only data that exist now is the "value-added" data.

There is no way for anybody to check the "scientist" work because the raw-data no longer exists at that facility. Instead now what has to happen is that people have to spend years recompiling the data from the various sources in order to reconstruct the raw temperature record.

The only thing that is obvious is the fact that you don't understand the scientific process.

*sigh* maybe you should go back to the basement and do more of your "science".

Programs are only there to make data fit. The thing to look at is WHY the code was put as such, which is clearly defined in that document. You are projecting intent to commit fraud. The actual reason is to normalize the information-at least accoring to papers released back in 1989 which discusses adding the modifications. ie: you are drawing a conclusion without looking at all the facts. Without the normalizations it was showing temperature drops that were refuted by other evidence.

Also, the raw data was not deleted. The results were. All the emails complain about the data being in a huge clump. They kept dropping their work on said data. Not the data itself which was already sent out to multiple institutions.

I am digging through their site now, will edit and post the link when I find.

(edit)
Grr, they shut down all web access on the main url, and looks like ftp as well. Cached data is still available from 2008 which had the link. But the pdf itself is non-accessible at this time without doing some shady things.
www.cru.uea.ac.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink">CRU cached site from dec 2008
Dec 2008 was the most recent.
The document (when it all comes back up is: www.cru.uea.ac.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink">this
On the cached page it is at the bottom via the link "Farmer et al. 1989, "Documenting and explaining recent global-mean temperature changes" (Adobe Portable Document Format file) (17MB) - final report to NERC contract GR3/6565. " The sections that discuss the program mods is "Apriori and Postpriori data".

(second edit is because of the munged link.. the embedded links look OK.. but here they are in plain text)
web.archive.org...://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

web.archive.org...://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/pdf/Farmer-1989-NERC.pd


(Edit)
Found a paper very similar to the farmer-nerc one. pay attention to section 3.2.1.1 onwards as it discusses the difficulty in homogeneous data. The farmer-nerc pdf is more specific to the CRU data, but is similar in statements from what I remember.
[edit on 4-12-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 4-12-2009 by lordtyp0]

[edit on 4-12-2009 by lordtyp0]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


You didn't even watch the video either.. What a pathetic way to reply to a topic.

The video shows solid evidence that CO2 and Sunlight are the two most important factors for our weather. That alone is proof that man's contribution to CO2 can cause global warming.

I will even show you an experiment that proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That alone is proof that our CO2 emissions can cause warming.

I don't even want to bother talking to you anymore since you don't even know the basics of global warming.



[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE




You are the one sitting here trying to say the e-mails are debunked. I'm just presenting the fact that the e-mails can't be debunked because the are true. The fact is that even in the e-mails there is evidence of collusion to suppress papers that disagree with the religion of AGW. There is evidence that they have colluded to delete data.

It's all there and all of it is authentic. You are trying to minimize the scope at which the e-mails encompass and leave those e-mails out of it.

Alright call me ignorant all you want doesn't make is so.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Once again you post total bullocks.

It doesn't matter if the e-mails are real or fake, the issues regarding them have been debunked!

I can debunk a UFO video, even if it is real. How? I explain what is in the video, and prove it. That doesn't mean the video is fake, it means it's contents have been debunked.

The issues with the e-mails have been debunked. It doesn't mean the e-mails are fake, it means the issues in them have been debunked, and explained.

No data was lost. No data was edited to support global warming, data was edited to fix issues with smoothing and averaging the graph.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
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.

I agree with lordtyp0 to some extent as I am a physicist and programmer, so reading and interpreting the code is a simple thing for me. However, when I see variables changes that don't make sense and actually colour the output data to follow a predetermined path, along with all the documents and the emails that contain a very well defined plan to suppress dissenting theories, "colour" global opinion and world view, it reminds me of the IMHO scumbag Mandela and the capitulation of South Africa. I've been down this path before, it was ugly, got the t-shirt and look at the mess now in SA.

Since I was operating with CI, in charge of project design/development and because of my clearances, I was privy to a vast amount of information, I see definite similarities pertaining to what the IMF and UN accomplished before with world view manipulation to achieve end goals like resource rape. I see the same thing with AGW. Political Correctness became a religion and now the same has happened with AGW.

You might want to read up on the Hegelian Dialectic and other principals of Georg Hegel and how they are applied to force political change. As well maybe you might want to examine the Delphi Technique concerning consensus driven manipulation. If you are going to debate an issue please make sure you are well informed as to all the underlying principals, root causes, available evidence and at least a reasonable hypothesis concerning end goals of any politically oriented situation.

Saying we, or I, am afraid of the NWO is puerile, as far as I am concerned, it is a misconception on your part concerning people who actively aspire to acquire knowledge and information concerning present world conditions. When the time comes, I like many others will do what is necessary, in a cautious and calculated manner, but certainly without fear. As far as the UN and IMF go concerning AGW, I expect nothing for the planet or the general population (a term used concerning prisons) and therefore I am never disappointed.

So please understand allisone, I am not trying to convert you, I am just asking you to examine all the possibilities rather than take a "follow the herd" attitude while listening to the mantra pumped out by the UN, IPCC and the Gore unit who wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't for the money, power and glory.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/4.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
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.

Yet scientists associated with these emails are quitting their jobs over this scandal, rather than sticking around to fight the good fight.

What is most telling in this controversy is that the climate-change advocates are jumping ship rather than defending their positions. Government leaders worldwide are condemning the falsified climate data to such a degree that it is derailing the climate-change crusade.

Worst of all, the "Big Three" news networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) are refusing to report the story at all... which certainly makes it appear that the major news networks are colluding to bury the story.

This does not bode well for those who endorse the manmade climate-change hoax.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 12/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
No data was lost.

Au contraire... The data in question has now been thrown out by the hysterical climate-change crusaders, rather than keeping it, explaining it and defending it.

Can you say "18-minute gap"...?


— Doc Velocity






[edit on 12/4/2009 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
So please understand allisone, I am not trying to convert you, I am just asking you to examine all the possibilities rather than take a "follow the herd" attitude while listening to the mantra pumped out by the UN, IPCC and the Gore unit who wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't for the money, power and glory.

Honestly, I don't follow anyone. I am not the person you think I am... Although I support MMGW, I am not supporting it because someone else is. I'm supporting it because it is logicaly REAL.

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.

I don't listen to ANYONE. I don't care the UN, IPCC, Al Gore, or ANYONE SAYS. I am independent, I only make my own conclusions.

I myself, without even looking at data, can figure out that our CO2 emissions can warm local areas, change weather patterns, and in the end effect global temperatures. It's all about the physics.

The amount of CO2 humans make is no joke. The Earth isn't designed to absorb the amount of CO2 humans emit. This means one thing.... ABUNDANCE.

We have an ABUNDANCE of CO2 in our atmosphere. You can't deny this..... I live in Los Angeles and I see this first hand, we have way to many cars, way to many people. To think it's not effecting our weather or atmosphere is a JOKE.



[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

 

Once again you post total bullocks.

It doesn't matter if the e-mails or real or fake, the issues regarding them have been debunked!

I can debunk a UFO video, even if it is real. How? I explain what is in the video, and prove it. That doesn't mean the video is fake, it means it's contents have been debunked.

The issues with the e-mails have been debunked. It doesn't mean the e-mails are fake, it means the issues in them have been debunked, and explained.

No data was lost. No data was edited to support global warming, data was edited to fix issues with smoothing and averaging the graph.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

I have to ask if this is your new mantra...

"The issues with the e-mails have been debunked. It doesn't mean the e-mails are fake, it means the issues in them have been debunked, and explained.

No data was lost. No data was edited to support global warming, data was edited to fix issues with smoothing and averaging the graph."

If it is, your handlers need some new material. The data was manipulated, the code was manipulated, scientists were manipulated, scientific publications were manipulated, the peer review process was manipulated and general world view and opinion was manipulated. All of this to enable the Copenhagen Treaty and get it passed.

What part of the manipulation don't you understand?

Why don't you go read the UNFCCC, page 18, article 38 items a, b and c, maybe then you can figure out what is going on.

The real problem with all of this is not whether we have global warming or global cooling, or the cause, in any event it has to be fixed. It's that the corporations, IMF and government created the problem and now they expect us, the 6.5 billion debt slaves, to pay for their mistakes while they aren't ready to pay for them out of their profits which they made on all of us. I say charge them all with crimes against humanity, use a court of normal intelligent people and if found guilty, string 'em up and hopefully rid the gene pool of a few of million seriously nasty mutations.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/4.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

I can't even talk to you people. You erroneously equate that "manipulation" means "fake".

When I put a larger size tire on my truck, I had to "manipulate" my trucks computer module so that the speedometer would show the correct speed I was going. It doesn't mean my speedometer is showing a fake speed.

People are evil and dumb. Lies and rumors will spread for years after this fiasco. I don't blame people for quitting their jobs because of this. I wouldn't want to deal with the rumors and lies either.

Listen, I understand that the Cap and Trade laws are covered with crooks and liars. This doesn't mean global warming is fake. It just means there are heartless people who will try to make money off of peoples problems.

Just because there is some scandal, doesn't make the entire subject fake.

You might as well say all UFOS and and Aliens are fake because a few people made hoaxes, and manipulated data to support them.



[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I myself am a very scientific minded person... I myself, without even looking at data, can figure out that our CO2 emissions can warm local areas, change weather patterns, and in the end effect global temperatures. It's all about the physics... The amount of CO2 humans make is no joke.

As a scientific-minded person, then, can you show me any data that indicates a decline in "local area" temperatures between 1970 and 2006, during which time the USA reduced its overall carbon emissions by more than 50%?

Certainly, with such a drastic reduction in overall carbon emissions (according to EPA numbers), we should certainly see some sort of "local area" temperature reduction over a 36-year time frame, yes?

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
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.

Rubbish. Those are all figurehead panels of beaurocrats trying to keep their positions. Many groups have over 50,000 memebers who aren't even polled. 15 suits make the decision for them. And majority of all of their 'conclusions' are based on the discredited IPCC Report.

We seem to have a new thread over in the Deconstruction Disinfo forum that smashes the idea of 'consensus' to pieces, that has yet to be answered by any of you global warming fraud deniers.

So you people take the consensus as determined by these figurehead offices, but reject the 31,000 individuals who have spoken out.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
People are evil and dumb.

Except for scientists and skeptics, of course, who are benevolent and omniscient.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You might as well say all UFOS and and Aliens are fake because a few people made hoaxes, and manipulated data to support them.

Yet, isn't that exactly how scientists and skeptics treat the entire UFO phenomenon? Without so much as putting forth the effort to research the UFO phenomenon, they invariably debunk and denounce it, from the comfort of their easy chairs.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I myself am a very scientific minded person... I myself, without even looking at data, can figure out that our CO2 emissions can warm local areas, change weather patterns, and in the end effect global temperatures. It's all about the physics... The amount of CO2 humans make is no joke.

As a scientific-minded person, then, can you show me any data that indicates a decline in "local area" temperatures between 1970 and 2006, during which time the USA reduced its overall carbon emissions by more than 50%?

Certainly, with such a drastic reduction in overall carbon emissions (according to EPA numbers), we should certainly see some sort of "local area" temperature reduction over a 36-year time frame, yes?

— Doc Velocity

This is dependant on quite a few things. First I think it is fair to point out that probably-nobody on here is (edit, orig said "pro climatologist", different connotation than I meant/) a professional trained climatologist. So its just a bunch of people speculating.

The temerature that is localized is known as 'urban warming' Mostly affected by things such as buildings and pavement etc.. The Carbon factor is concentrated locally, at first but dispenses through the air on a gradiant. Seems like less carbon emissions would cause a very gradual temperature change over a wide area as what was already released would still be dispersing. It would just have less to boost it in the local area.

The Carbon issue isn't a localized miasma like an inversion keeping car exhaust in a city. It spreads. First areas which would logically be affected by an up or down shift would be bodies of water, with the largest noticeable first.

To bring a comparison which is not entirely accurate in juxtaposition but will hopefully illustrate what I mean:
CFCs. CFC's break down Ozone in a mechanical way similar to an enzyme. It latches onto a molecule, tears it up, releases and grabs another. Stopping production of CFCs only slows the overall process until something occurs to 'denature' the existing CFCs.

The carbon is still there, being slowly scrubbed by plants-which is slowing down more because of mass deforestation. Eventually reduced emissions will cause a noticeable impact. But with emissions still going strong at other places and dispersing with the same gradient slope...

But most of what I stated there was conjecture based on deductive reasoning of what I know/have learned. I did not pull that from any specific source. And if someone has something that corrects it, please provide. Everyone should know as much as they can on this, the important part is that it is CORRECT information.


[edit on 4-12-2009 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by lordtyp0

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.

That's fraud buddy.

The paper recommended the deletion of data BECAUSE THE DATA INVALIDATES THE USE OF TREE RINGS AS PROXIES

OF COURSE THEY SAID IT SHOULD BE DELETED


You are arguing that all the proxy data before 1960 accurately describes temperatures, but all the proxy data after 1960 doesn't.

Why?

Why should I believe that the proxy data is valid prior to 60 when its not valid after?

THIS IS THE HEART OF THE ISSUE

The climate fraudsters can't have their cake and eat it too. Post 1960 there's a lot more climate sensors around to validate the proxy data against, hence we should see LESS of a divergence, not more. The proxy data is a complete joke.

Its a bunch of pseudo-science like witch doctors throwing chicken bones on the ground to determine past temperatures.




[edit on 4-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I can't even talk to you people. You erroneously equate that "manipulation" means "fake".

When I put a larger size tire on my truck, I had to "manipulate" my trucks computer module so that the speedometer would show the correct speed I was going. It doesn't mean my speedometer is showing a fake speed.

People are evil and dumb. Lies and rumors will spread for years after this fiasco. I don't blame people for quitting their jobs because of this. I wouldn't want to deal with the rumors and lies either.

Listen, I understand that the Cap and Trade laws are covered with crooks and liars. This doesn't mean global warming is fake. It just means there are heartless people who will try to make money off of peoples problems.

Just because there is some scandal, doesn't make the entire subject fake.

You might as well say all UFOS and and Aliens are fake because a few people made hoaxes, and manipulated data to support them.

[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

In this case manipulation means fake.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

As I said, we may have a problem with climate change that has to be addressed and fixed, if it can even be fixed, but, the Copenhagen Treaty, Cap and Trade, etc., are all bulls**t excuses to cause changes that affect billions negatively and a handful of scumbags positively. So, I don't see how building a fake house on top of a fake foundation makes something in which we can all live and prosper. More accurate still, a foundation of liars paid for by shills and a house of criminals.

We need the truth and facts so that we can make our own educated decisions, not some garbage rhetoric from the UN or IMF who pretend like they know better so they can fleece us all into a totalitarian regime based on lies and innuendo.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/4.2009 by bobs_uruncle]