Why theres no sign of a climate conspiricy in hacked emails

Why theres no sign of a climate conspiricy in hacked emails

www.newscientist.com

The leaking of emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, has led to a media and political storm. The affair is being portrayed as a scandal that undermines the science behind climate change. It is no such thing, and here's why.

We can be 100 per cent sure the world is getting warmer

Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and

(visit the link for the full news article)

I thought id post this after everything about climate-gate
gotta make an equal argument before everyone jumps on the bandwagon



www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

note how they don't bother adressing any of the salient quotes (out of context all of them i know i know) or the comments to the code, they talk about certainty of the world getting warmer, while scientists themselves wrote it was travesty they couldn't account for the recent lack of warming. They no longer need to provide credible data instead of inferral of allegedly obvious warming and earlier spring (not to mention that they can't because a lot of it has been deleted), it's all an established fact, through relentless PR over more than a decade. soothing words for those who wish to believe and can't be inconvenienced to take a look at the leaked files themselves.

then we have Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out


now which is it? you know that both, false and true scenarios can be consistent, but something that is inconsistent can never be true, don't you? this quicksand of ham-handed damage control and the accumulated lies of several decades will mark the end of what was AGW.

reply to post by superdebz


Then please do exlain these for us so we can get back to that global government / global carbon tax:

1256747199
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

843161829
I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ...I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have

1252164302
We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia.

938018124
everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this (cooling trend) was a problem and a potential distraction / detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show

938018124
I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.

1255523796
The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!

1120593115
I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.

1051190249
I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

1089318616
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

1177890796
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.

1256735067
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,

From what I understand is the methodology of testing heat is the thing that is manipulated. They are measuring heat in areas that are more hot and using it as a baseline to project all temperature. At least that is how I'm understanding the data. They place their testing nodes in places that traditionally build more heat, then they proclaim 'look it's getting hotter.'

reply to post by superdebz


The hoax is a hoax

www.climatechangefacts.info...

Where i live leafs fell of the trees around the same time as normal, oh no, some one said in a science mag, that cannot be true. Quick watch a tv programme and tell us the truth oh science lords.

These are the same people that mind control people, taking there thoughts and even though they cannot tell what any of the words mean, or there context destroy that lifes,as they think they are smart.

Sounds like the ground hog rubbish about telling how long winter will be, lol.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by superdebz

 

Then please do exlain these for us so we can get back to that global government / global carbon tax:

1256747199
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

843161829
I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ...I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have

1252164302
We cherry-picked the tree-ring series in Eurasia.

938018124
everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this (cooling trend) was a problem and a potential distraction / detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show

938018124
I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.

1255523796
The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!

1120593115
I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.

1051190249
I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about — it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

1089318616
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

1177890796
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.

1256735067
As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,

Just because i believe the theroy doesnt mean i support the tax.
but at the end of the day a few emails cannot debunk a theroy this big. espeically when its got hard evidece to back it up

reply to post by superdebz


hard made up evidence you mean

Originally posted by '___'omino
reply to post by superdebz

 

hard made up evidence you mean

so your saying everything from millions of scientists around the world ranging from carbon dating to atmospheric tests is all made up

reply to post by superdebz


You obviously don't understand how science works.

All it takes is one experiment to prove a theory wrong. It doesn't matter how "big" the theory is. Take for instance the search for the Higgs Boson. If they don't find the Higgs then everything we know about particle psychics is wrong.

reply to post by superdebz


Are we going to do this again? What is wrong with these species terrorists? Is it really that they are so horribly deluded by AGW and the party line to dismiss every stick of credible information that points to scientific tampering?

We've been down this path and certainly News articles don't mean anything. There is a great deal of information in the following thread.

ATS Thread Here

And remember people, you can't win an argument with an idiot, religious zealot or a fanatic, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/5.2009 by bobs_uruncle]

It really almost seems funny that one of these threads that says global warming is still real and still man made every per every number of other threads on here and on other sites but the facts are pretty weak. Yeah they were busted lying through their teeth and no amount of disinfo stories rolling through is gonna change that. I guess that's why TPTB are in such a hurry to gain total control of the internet.

reply to post by Redwookieaz


My thoughts also.






Nice try, again.


Keep creating threads to keep people's eye's off the ball.


The emails speak for them self, and they admit it!!!


Why don't you calculate the carbon footprint of every one of these threads to try to prove man made global warming, so as to see how much hot air wasted!

Bonkers, the lot of you. How can pumping all this crap into the air NOT have an effect?

Originally posted by superdebz

Why theres no sign of a climate conspiricy in hacked emails

It's conspiracy not Conspiricy , I was imagining climate change pirates coming up the shoreline with their skull and bones...

If there is no climate conspiracy, perhaps you can tell me why supposedly highly intelligent people would need to manipulate their data.

In doing so, hiding particular information, can not be, or ever be a science. That is not conspiracy, but an misleading lie carried out by the most capable and smartest intellectuals - who all know better .

As I have said in other threads about this scientists, are smart people, real science is presenting all your data, and explaining what data is meaningful, coming to some conclusions, and what data is errorneous/anamlous or otherwise - and providing your own explanation for that.

all of that must be shared for it to be unbiased, impartial science

Question: Is all the climate change data available?
Answer: No , no it isn't.
Question: Why?
Answer: because the data is 'owned' internationally by different people
Question: Is that the definition of a conspiracy?
Answer: Yes, most certainly could be.

i.e. intellectual protection and bad science is preventing impartial , wholey available data to be analyzed by the scientific community.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple - you INCLUDE ALL DATA for the review of your peers, and it is they who decide whether your assertions, and indeed in many cases - assumptions, are founded in factual science or not.

That is science. But how can we get out a really big hammer if the data scientists are trying to test isn't wholly available and in some rare cases, carried out in an unscientific way.

One specific many people try to raise and are blown down is: when data is withheld, it is hard to check where the bad science is - figures can be 'fitted' or manipulated with an agenda by any talented person luckily enough to be smarter than the rest of us. Don't believe me? I'm a consultant, trust me - it is very easy to take advantage to people. That is the responsibility of being a professional

Yes, Yes, exactly *silence*

Both sides constantly ramble on about how each other are dishonest but IGNORE the facts. I guess the ATS disinformation agents had to post another new thread, because the other one was quickly 'de-railed' with some truth for once.

I have my eyes on you disinfo agents!!
UA



[edit on 6-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

[edit on 6-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

reply to post by rizla


Thank you for injecting a little sense into this argument though I am afraid it is lost on those who have already made up their minds.
Why don't people understand that just like health care is being derailed by the insurance industry this climate change issue (calling climate change a hoax) is being perpetuated by the biggest corporations, those that are doing the most polluting so they don't have to pay the tax for their pollution?
And these people are falling in line behind them shouting 'yeah that's right climate change is a hoax'...pathetic and sad how easily they are manipulated.

I'm getting the impression that "New Scientist" is not really a credible publication.

That's a pretty biased article trying to convince readers using anecdotal evidence that the empirical evidence is there, when in fact it does not seem to exist at all.

Originally posted by rizla
Bonkers, the lot of you. How can pumping all this crap into the air NOT have an effect?

it does have an effect, so let's focus on those emissions whose effects are the most detrimental. this means toxic pollution first, unnatural, but maybe superficially innocuous emissions next and last in line to be reduced should be naturally occurring substances - like steam and carbon dioxide.


what's you guys' emphasis on again? follow the deceit, then follow the money.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by superdebz

 

You obviously don't understand how science works.

All it takes is one experiment to prove a theory wrong. It doesn't matter how "big" the theory is. Take for instance the search for the Higgs Boson. If they don't find the Higgs then everything we know about particle psychics is wrong.

emails do not debunk a theory.
and by your logic it only takes one experiment to prove the theory right.