Why theres no sign of a climate conspiricy in hacked emails

reply to post by rnaa



www.abovetopsecret.com...

what is this then?


www.timesonline.co.uk

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

(visit the link for the full news article)



dumped? deleted?

so, do i really have to cue the Iraqi Information minister? D-Bot? as in Denial?

reply to post by gerdony


You guys really don't get it do you? No one is saying that we aren't warming, it's called COMING OUT OF AN ICE AGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The warming has happened before we even set foot on this planet, and it will happen again. There is non-manipulated data showing that the earth was much hotter between the last ice ages than now, and there was no burning of fossil fuels then. All this human caused warming nonsense is just so they can tax the world.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by gerdony

 

You guys really don't get it do you? No one is saying that we aren't warming, it's called COMING OUT OF AN ICE AGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The warming has happened before we even set foot on this planet, and it will happen again. There is non-manipulated data showing that the earth was much hotter between the last ice ages than now, and there was no burning of fossil fuels then. All this human caused warming nonsense is just so they can tax the world.

The data shows that the earth is COOLING, not warming. IF anything, we're going INTO an iceage, not coming out of one.

reply to post by angrysniper


We have been coming out of one, it called the little ice age. Temperatures rise and fall, this happens all the time.
Look at the graph, up and down, up and down, up and down.
schools-wikipedia.org...
We could however be entering another, or it could just be a short lived trend, don't know. I do know that the earth has regular cycles that have nothing to do with us.
Also interesting...
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by angrysniper
The data shows that the earth is COOLING, not warming. IF anything, we're going INTO an iceage, not coming out of one.

What data is that? Everything I've seen from glacier retreat to instrumental temperature records points to warming, not cooling.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by rnaa

 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

what is this then?


www.timesonline.co.uk

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

(visit the link for the full news article)

dumped? deleted?

so, do i really have to cue the Iraqi Information minister? D-Bot? as in Denial?

A misunderstanding by the reporter.

The school may well have trashed old computer tapes and other media that could no longer be read (unless you have a punched card reader, a 256BPI open reel tape drive, maybe a paper tape reader lying around?). It may have dumped test data, interim printouts, whatever.

But the raw data still exists. And is online. And is freely available to anyone along with program code and documentation. Here is a list of links to the data for your convenience. . If you notice anything you need that is missing you can discuss it here.

The data has been online for quite some time, certainly before the emails were stolen.

Except that portion of the data which is owned by various national meteorological services that have refused to allow CRU to make it freely available. But even that data is available to academics upon submitting a valid request.

The CRU is trying to overcome those contractual obligations and get it published along with all the other stuff. If you want to help that process, contact your national meteorological service and encourage them to allow it to be released.

[edit on 7/12/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 7/12/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by Harlequin

as for the second link - thats a totally different set of data and of sidelined and ignored FOI requests - oh wait , the same sort of information request that the released emails directly said to ignore and delete the data for.

The second link goes to the exact same page as the first link so there is no way for me to know what the heck you are talking about.

I cut and pasted the quotation in my post from YOUR link. McK clearly states that Briffa has all the data and has not deleted it. What is your problem? It has not been lost.

Yes many, many reports do not use Briffa's data beyond 1960 because he cannot explain why it doesn't match data from other tree series or other proxies. There is clearly something local happening to this set of Alaskan trees that didn't happen to Siberian or Japanese or European trees.

There is nothing sinister about this. Briffa has always been very open and every researcher has known about and free to decide whether or not to use the pre-1960 portion. There has never been anything hidden about it.

All tree ring data from all over the world agree with the observed temperatures before 1960 making tree-rings a good proxy for direct temperature readings. One set of about 9 trees (I think) from a single site in Alaska disagree with over a hundred trees from Europe, Asia, and Japan after 1960. The disagreement, "the divergence problem" is well known and always has been.

So what caused the local divergence in the Alaskan trees? This is an interesting question, not an embarrassing result.

yes, global warming is real.

no, it is not caused by CO2 emissions that make up a MINUTE WHISP of the Earth's atmosphere.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
yes, global warming is real.

no, it is not caused by CO2 emissions that make up a MINUTE WHISP of the Earth's atmosphere.

All is relative. CFC concentrations spiked in the 90's (they got as high as 3 parts per billion in the stratosphere so I guess not even 1 PPB in the atmosphere). Think how minute that was..



[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


You're working so HARD to sell this scam !


WHY ?



.

reply to post by Dock9

I don't know. I like debating. Especially when I'm right It's not a scam so stop saying that until (never) you can back it with facts. At this point in time there is nothing going for the sceptics. There's always a chance, but until such thing is presented it's just plain stupid going around yelling scam hoax blablabla. And it wouldn't matter because there's still ocean acidification. That alone is a reason enough to stop burning fossil fuels. This is not your planet. It doesn't belong to humans. We should be like guardians. If you're religious think of it as preserving God's creation. If you're like me you know it's the right thing to do no matter what.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
yes, global warming is real.

no, it is not caused by CO2 emissions that make up a MINUTE WHISP of the Earth's atmosphere.

All is relative. CFC concentrations spiked in the 90's (they got as high as 3 parts per billion in the stratosphere so I guess not even 1 PPB in the atmosphere). Think how minute that was..



[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

all is relative, how postmodern of you haha.

CFCs are OZONE ... totally different thing than global warming.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
yes, global warming is real.

no, it is not caused by CO2 emissions that make up a MINUTE WHISP of the Earth's atmosphere.

All is relative. CFC concentrations spiked in the 90's (they got as high as 3 parts per billion in the stratosphere so I guess not even 1 PPB in the atmosphere). Think how minute that was..

all is relative, how postmodern of you haha.

CFCs are OZONE ... totally different thing than global warming.

That is without a doubt the most uninformed comment I've come across in this forum so far. Well done! Really CFCs are O3 molecules?

The point here was that contradictory to your uninformed opinion, even very little changes can have drastic consequences.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked.

Riiiiiight, forget all the relevant scientific data that we've been shoving down your throats for years, that's not important.

Not now we know it was all a load of crap it's not no!

[edit on 8-12-2009 by nik1halo]

reply to post by rusethorcain

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.

Do a little research please.

The oil companies are all for the carbon tax.

1) they pass ALL taxes on to their consumers. their profit stays the same or probably increases.

2) Jay Rockefeller - YOU KNOW the Rockefellers who own Standard oil, Exxon and part of JP Morgan-Chase Bank - is promoting carbon capture and sequestration.

3) the oil companies get to make more money out of the played out oil wells by using them to sequester CO2 and YOU pay them to do it. greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com...

Here is a quote from Richard Folland advisor to JP Morgan - Chase

"The financial sector has a major stake in Copenhagen. Decisions there will affect investment and business. At J. P. Morgan, we are significant participants in the carbon market as traders, project developers and in voluntary carbon offsetting.Our hope for Copenhagen is that we get clarity, to set out the long-term policy framework that investment needs.... Our fear is that an inability to reach an agreement puts these decisions on hold, thus delaying investment..." www.newscientist.com...

And a big advocate of AGW in the UK, former PM Tony blair has just been hired as an advisor by JP Morgan - Chase at $1 million/year

Banking and oil and AGW are very intertwined if you would just FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

PS health care being "derailed by Insurance" is just as much an illusion as the Wall Street Banking Interests being against the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Another swindle sponsored by the democratic party. Read some history and see how the wool is pulled over peoples eyes so these swindles can be carried out.

..."The next thing, Aldrich and Vanderlip [the real author's of the bill] began to give speeches and interviews to newspaper reporters condemning the bill. They said: "This bill will be ruinous to banking. It will be terrible for the country." By the time the common man read that in his newspaper he said: "Oh golly, I guess these big bankers don't like the bill very much so it must be pretty good."

These fellows were not stupid. You have to give them credit. They didn't get to be where they were by being country bumpkins. They understood politics, they understood mass psychology and they played their cards exceedingly well....

These are the same families applying the same tricks, so please read a bit of history so you can spot them.

Originally posted by rhinoceros


All is relative. CFC concentrations spiked in the 90's (they got as high as 3 parts per billion in the stratosphere so I guess not even 1 PPB in the atmosphere). Think how minute that was..

i suggest you all stop being deceptive on purpose. just for a day,k?

this objection reveals your bias, because the 'natural' level of CFCs is zilch, while CO2's is usually in the hundreds ppm(V), therefore the relative change for CO2 is roughly a third, if the published figures are accurate, while that of CFCs is off the charts. if you're going to such a length to come up with this comparison, it's obvious you already knew that very well and went ahead anyway.

what for?

as for the receding glacier issue, have you ever contemplated the nature of such a beast? i'll give you a hint: snow from above, melting at the end, whatever happens, it's slow, therefore you're going to see specific (as in varying between individuals glaciers) delays, which are likely to differ, depending on their length, altitude and so forth. i think it's easy to enough to understand that they will again advance if this 'decline' they talk about in the emails has any basis in reality, starting in a decade or so.

www.wunderground.com...

Some glaciers are still getting bigger

Despite the worldwide trend toward retreat, a number of glaciers are growing. Dyurgerov and Meier's 2005 study found that Scandanavian glaciers were gaining mass balance. Likewise, certain glaciers in areas general retreat, including Alaska, are exhibiting evidence of expansion. A 2007 study showed that in 5% of the study area in Alaska and Canada, glaciers, such as the Taku Glacier, were experiencing thickening (Larsen et al., 2007). Fealy and Sweeny (2005) find "an increased moisture flux over the North Atlantic" as being behind glacier advances in Scandinavia. Other glaciers, such as the Taku, are getting larger mainly due to the fact they are tidewater glaciers in the late stage of their cycles. As such, they are losing mass primarily due to calving . which means they are losing mass in their ablation zones. With smaller ablation zones, the glacier tries to restore its mass balance, resulting in growth in the accumulation region and glacial advance (Larsen et al., 2007).

reply to post by Long Lance


Glacier advances are very much dependent on the amount of snow. It does not matter how cold it is if there are dry conditions. A lack of snow during the winter means the balance between accumulation and melting shifts. Ocean current shifts and volcanoes also influence glacier dynamics. To say a glacier is melting therefore the whole earth is warming is typical NONSCIENTIFIC propaganda if the specifics about each increase or decrease are not laid out for all to see.


A used car salesman tells you "this car get 63 MPG" --- are you going to buy it or ask WHY.

Of course, he didn't bother to tell you someone put an engine from a riding mower in the car and it only goes 4 MPH and is unable to go up a hill....

HMMMmmm I bet I could sell a lot of those cars on EBAY...

Originally posted by crimvelvet


Glacier advances are very much dependent on the amount of snow.

sure, that's the case of Mt. Kilimanjaro, all i wanted to emphasize was that these movements exhibit a strong lag.