Climategate debunked!

Don't know why this hasn't gotten more coverage....I mean i know that the mcRib is back but come on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html

Sorry for the huffpo but im sure the blaze has reported on this, maybe even fox.

Jon Stewart from the daily show claimed this got an amazing 24 seconds of face time on the news!

Im still skeptical, there is going to be snow tonight therefore climate warming is not happening. I know it in my gut and that means a hell of a lot more than "Scientists". Everyone knows they just want my money to live their luxurious lifestyles.

[/sarcasm]
47 answers Last reply
More about climategate debunked
  1. That entire article is retarded. The point of Climategate had nothing to do with the fact that what was uncovered conclusively proved that Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming was false.

    What Climategate was about, was the fact that scientists, who are suppose to devote their lives and ethics to scientific method, truth, and to be free from political biases... were found to be fudging with numbers, denying Freedom of Information requests, and were conspiring through emails to convince other colleagues to do the same. And as it turned out, their base data was being sent to other organizations for their conclusions/modeling, and when the investigation started they claimed all that data had "somehow" been erased from their servers.

    This is in direct opposition to what science is all about: ethical behavior, transparency, and repeatable testing of observations. If what they did in any way fueled skepticism towards their work, then they have no one to blame but themselves. The one place no one needs political bias being injected into the equation is in scientific research, because the apologists can whine all they want about "oh sure, scientists make billions right? I am sure they are really tempted to be biased just to become rich off those lucrative research grants, lol!!1!"... but the truth is, with many many Americans not even being able to find a job, a scientist on the Climate research gravy train while not making enough to be rich, lives very comfortable and of course has a vested interest in keeping the income he DOES have going. Please everyone stop pretending that it's impossible for them to be perched on a slippery slope concerning research grants, just because their total income isn't skyhigh.

    Those grants might not make them Warren Buffet, but it's a bonadfide gravy train, and it provides more job security and comfortable income than most Americans enjoy. The fact that they could engage in any unethical behavior of that sort should have gotten them immediately fired, and disgraced/shunned by the entire scientific community - guaranteeing they would never work around grant money again.


    p.s. If you want a completely different pov about this same topic, and it isn't even new or recent news, here is a link that is NOT HuffPo and that details not only the denying of information requests, but also CRU's Phil Jones claiming the original data was lost, and the fact that scientists were adjusting the raw data to make it seem like it was warmer.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/26/climategate-scandal-spreads-new-zealand-msm-continues-ostrich-act
  2. Did you even read the article? Ive been trying to find the actual report but am not having luck, if anyone could lend a googling hand..

    No ones denying(even the scientists) that methods used were less than perfect and there's room for improvement. But the facts remain that this was solid sciencing and the original views on the planet warming (It is) is true.

    What the point of the article is is that no one reported on it. I remember last winter all anyone talked about was climategate and those fat cat scientists checking other scientists work and making tons of money off of it. But now that 5 independent reviews have in fact verified global warming no one is reporting on it. Why?
  3. PS your link is from 2009
  4. Alright Ill find that report and we will see what it says.

    Until then its just hearsay. I conceded that but if any climate scientologists are out there fill me in or if you have a copy of the report post a link dammit.
  5. wanamingo said:

    No ones denying(even the scientists) that methods used were less than perfect and there's room for improvement.

    Like doctored data and discarded original data?

    Scientific method would include providing all of the original data, the climate models, and the weighting algorithms so that others could duplicate Mann's hockey stick graph. But the hockey strick graph cannot be duplicated. Mann threw out his "original" data.

    wanamingo said:
    PS your link is from 2009

    So what? Show me any recent data that invalidates that thread.
  6. wanamingo said:
    PS your link is from 2009


    P.S. "and it isn't even new or recent news" Do YOU even bother reading, or did you just skip over where I prepped the link with this statement?


    The point was, in case you missed it, that Phil Jones himself admitted the original raw data was now gone, and he was caught red-handed in his emails talking about waging a campaign to deny FOIs. I suppose things like that never happened, even when he himself said so?

    Maybe if the HUffPo article you linked, and you as well, had not mentioned Climategate at all, and just focused on the debate over AGW, then we'd be talking about different things right now. But as I already laid out a very logical argument for, Climategate WAS brought up, and the point of Climategate was ethics, bias, and losing faith in scientists who direct massive millions in research grants. And btw, there is no way any of those independent investigations clearing Climategate scientists were actually independent and unbiased.


    I didn't attempt to debunk anything you or anyone else said about AGW itself, and had no intention of doing so.
  7. Wow you guys are nut jobs. I already said I'm actively looking for the report. And that its hearsay until I do.


    The problem here is LACK OF REPORTING.

    Sorry for touching on an obviously sensitive topic but I figured no one would *** a brick.

    Chill out.
  8. Scientists have a steady paying, with great pay job here, they no longer need to hop from 1 job to another, with lower pay.
    Its extremely convenient for them to have this, and thats the truth (no, not quoting Gore here).
    It is the matter of climategate itself, and not whether theres global warming, but the pictures been fuzzed up, and its the scientists whos fuzzed it up.
    Its a shame really, as their predictions were based upon timelines extremely pertinent to our survival, but somehow, power got in the way
  9. wanamingo said:
    Wow you guys are nut jobs. .


    I don't see how me making a very detailed refutation of the main argument in your original post, makes me a nut job. Let's reiterate what you stated/implied:

    1) Even though Climategate was actually about ethical concerns, you linked an article and said there isn't enough news coverage of Climategate being "debunked".
    2) Made a crack about how anyone debating AGW tries to use local weather as proof of their pov on a global scale.
    3) Made another crack about how it's ridiculous if anyone thinks a scientist can be swayed by their income and research grant millions, even if they aren't the most filthy rich (obviously) people in the world.


    I simply made a very easy to read breakdown of why calling Climategate "debunked" is silly, because none of it has been debunked. "Independent" investigations by people that are in reality all in bed with each other doesn't amount to much... the truth is that there is nothing to debunk and no need to investigate. Phil himself sent the emails, and admitted himself that the original raw data he was responsible for was "gone". End of story, what is there to investigate?

    Once again, if you simply want to wash all references to Climategate, and make this discussion solely about AGW, then I completely understand, and there is nothing wrong with that. But don't call me a nut job - Climategate was a "-Gate" because of the disgusting display of unethical behavior, it had absolutely nothing to do with proving/disproving AGW.
  10. It is known that the earth goes through cycles, there have been major climate changes in the past and it will happen in the future. Even if we all drive hybrids and live off only the earth there will be climate changes.

    Now pollution may speed up this cycle, by how much? Who knows... Maybe 100 years, maybe 1000 years. But for a cycle that is millions of years long being sped up by 100 years is just a drop in the bucket.

    This is just my opinion on the matter of global warming though.
  11. wanamingo said:
    Did you even read the article? Ive been trying to find the actual report but am not having luck, if anyone could lend a googling hand..

    I did not, but I did read some of the original coverage covering the issue: Christian Science Monitor: Climate study, funded in part by conservative group, confirms global warming.

    I didn't read past the OP, mainly because I know the biz-apologists are coming in. I look forward to seeing more links to energy sponsored (specifically coal and oil producers) pseudo-science from bloggers to refute.
  12. Most scientific organizations claim that this changes nothing about the facts.

    But I dont really see what we have to lose by cutting emissions. Nothing to lose everything to gain?
  13. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Outright lies and nitpicked, manipulated climate data changes nothing? The realization that its nothing but a hoax changes nothing?

    The hoax is the controversy over "climategate."

    Directly from Wanamingo's link:
    Quote:
    The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.


    It's there in black and white. It would have to be a serious conspiracy across numerous arenas of scientific study. Personally I trust science over any number of energy industry sponsored studies, although the Koch sponsored study did help balance the debate a bit and silence a lot of doubters.

    If you read the whole of that article that Wanamingo posted it clearly highlights all the actual, factual data. One thing that was mentioned in the article is that Scientists are human too, and they suffer the same type of human conditions we all do. Trying to hold them to a higher social standard is laughable when the same standard isn't applied to any business entity anywhere. Again, no lies or "nitpicked, manipulated data" as that Fox News article tries to elude. Considering Murdoch has strong ties to major energy players, the spin on that article doesn't surprise me.

    PS
    Even further consideration signals possible corporate espionage and I don't think it is unrealistic to suspect, that at least in part, that this was done by those who have a great deal to lose (in profit) from the increased scientific proof of our global climate changing.

    PSS
    Further reading from Ars Technica on the issue HERE.
  14. I really wonder if you've even read the links you provided, yourself...

    Almost to a tee, most of those "cleared of wrongdoing" reports said the same thing over and over: Lack of evidence. Newsflash for ya, lack of evidence to prove wrongdoing does not mean nothing was done wrong.

    Here is one nice little example, from one of the reports mentioned in Wanamingo's link:
    "After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding..."
    "All were impressed by Dr. Mann’s composure and his forthright responses to all of the queries that were asked of him."
    (Wow, they are already blowing him at very beginning of this report document? How impartial and professional!)
    "Throughout the interview, Dr. Mann answered each question carefully"
    (OH, I see!! That was how the report's conclusions were made... they asked if he did, and he denied!! Investigation complete!!!)
    "Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation."
    "In 2006, similar questions were asked about Dr. Mann and these questions motivated the National Academy of Sciences to undertake an in depth investigation of his research."
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

    Here's another funny gem from another report in Wanamingo's link:
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
    "We saw no evidence... and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it."
    WOW!!! Now that is a definitive conclusion!! ROFL!!

    The fact is that most of this was perpetrated by Phil Jones, and between his FoIA request obstruction, and claiming that the original data in question was "lost" (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/26/climategate-scandal-spreads-new-zealand-msm-continues-ostrich-act), it's really very very convenient to say oh yea we've our own independent investigations (by outside organizations that could not be biased in any way??? oops, no...) and we can find no evidence of anything. Well derka derka, it's hard to find data Phil Jones claims lost! "Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data." http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/the-biggest-scandal-of-all-is-this.html

    How can any of those investigations claim there was no influence on the science, when CRU was the base source of data that went out to many other organizations, and that original data is now conveniently gone? What is the basis for their conclusion, if the evidence that would prove the allegation one way or the other, is now "lost"?

    Here are a couple beauties from Phil Jones himself:
    "<2440> Jones:
    I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process"

    "<1577> Jones:
    [FOI, temperature data]
    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."

    That last one takes care of another convenient logical fallacy that the apologists here like to toss around: that no climate researcher could ever be influenced by the millions in grant money that flows around AGW, because while those researchers are fairly well off in comparison to most in America (and many in the world as well), they are by no means rich and would never let the global warming gravy-train influence their staunch ethics.

    Oh wait... that 2nd Jones email I listed seems to directly refute that! Right out of the horse's mouth.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-accepted-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html
    "A senior BBC journalist accepted £15,000 in grants from the university at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal – and later went on to cover the story without declaring an interest to viewers.

    Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’, used the money from the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research to fund an ‘ad hoc’ partnership he ran with a friend."
    "In none of Mr Harrabin’s reports on the subject were the grants that he and his friend Dr Joe Smith had received from UEA ever mentioned."
    "He said his report into the subsequent inquiry into Climategate, led by Lord Oxburgh (OH WAIT!!! That was the name of another "Independent" Investigation from the link Wanamingo put up!!http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP ), was praised for its ‘forensic impartiality’.
    Disclosure of the payments to Mr Harrabin’s private partnership comes in the wake of a damning report last week by the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8901365/The-BBCs-hidden-warmist-agenda-is-rapidly-unravelling.html

    "Last week, even Richard Black, another BBC proselytiser for man-made warming, was gloomily having to reveal the conclusion of a new IPCC report: that, over the next few decades, “climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variabilty”. In plain English, that means the great scare story is over. What a shame."

    There is a lot of stinky fish lying around, smelling up this entire issue. If they wanna whine that now no one takes them seriously, then they should clean up/police their own and get back to rigorous ethical principles that should accompany ANYTHING in a scientific field. I will leave with a couple of emails that hit the nail on the head, once again from the mouth of the very horses involved in all of this:

    "<3066> Thorne:
    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
    which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."

    "<2884> Wigley:
    Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
    dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]"

    ^^ Exactly!! Need more be said??


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/06/08/ten-years-and-counting-wheres-the-global-warming/
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
    http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4230-best-confirms-global-temperature-standstill.html
  15. knarl said:
    Almost to a tee, most of those "cleared of wrongdoing" reports said the same thing over and over: Lack of evidence. Newsflash for ya, lack of evidence to prove wrongdoing does not mean nothing was done wrong.

    I'm not sure you understand what "innocent until proven guilty" means, but in this country and the UK its the way the legal system works. Now that we have established that, I don't really care about your independent analysis, I'm educated enough on the actual topic to not have to sift through redundant emails looking for minuscule discrepancies.

    Like I said, this would have to be a major conspiracy across multiple disciplines of science. For instance, Ice Cores show lots of climate data that people like yourself write off, because you would rather focus on the controversy than the facts at hand. The article is 3 years old, and evidence since then has only grown.

    You can pull out all the emails you like, the evidence is still there far and wide.

    BTW, to make things clear, I'm referring to human impact on our current climate, not that the entire situation is human caused, only that we are contributing. This is the understanding that is held across many disciplines of science. Posting more emails from a case where those responsible have already admitted responsibility is beating a dead horse.

    PS
    Mother Jones sums up nicely what is going on here, again, in round 2 of the "Climategate Mis-quoting Sessions."

    Quote:
    In addition to the tranche of emails, the poster included a list of "greatest hits"—short quotes from the emails taken out of their context that are intended to paint scientists as scheming or lying.


    Exactly what is being done here.

    Oh, wouldn't you know, more on Ice Cores, published in Australia tomorrow (Nov 24).

    http://www.theleader.com.au/news/local/news/environment/ice-holds-climate-secrets/2368551.aspx

    Such a far reaching conspiracy...

    PSS

    I'm also going to leave this google search for you. Lot's and lots of articles dealing with ice cores, most of which are quite recent.

    PPSS
    This little gem was nice too... It's from CBS - Why Climate Skeptics Are Still Skeptical

    Quote:
    Today, Muller no longer doubts the reality of global warming.

    The BEST team's rigorous analysis showed that the average global land temperature has risen by 1 degree Celsius since the 1950s. The finding exactly matches those of past studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA and others. But this time, Muller says that because his team cleaned up the data in ways no other study has, their result is rock-solid.



    Massive, unbelievably large conspiracy here guys...
  16. I'm not sure you understand anything, at all... but, not that surprising. What does innocent until proven guilty have to do with anything, is someone on some kind of criminal trial? Didn't think so.

    Phil Jones sent the emails explicitly discussing deleting evidence and denying FoIA requests. The emails were in fact stolen, but they were also confirmed to be real. There is no "innocent until proven guilty", it is just fact. He did those things. And there is nothing to prove about the original data Phil was in charge of being gone, it is just gone. From his own mouth, "lost or destroyed". What of that is not fact to you?

    It's nice how you turned a post of mine that dealt with ethical improprieties by scientists, into your rant about Global Warming... which is a topic I wasn't even discussing. I posted a couple of links at the very end, just to show that the theory on AGW is still evolving (as anything in science will always be). But 99% of this entire thread has been about Climategate... you might want to check the title again. Climategate isn't and never WAS about AGW, and it should be a little humiliating that it needs to be explained yet again.

    The practice of putting "-gate" on the end of a subject, was started back in the Nixon era, and denotes an outrageous breach of ethical behavior, often times also criminal. Climategate from the start was about unethical and unscientific conduct, it never disproved Global Warming.

    Yet you keep on blabbing on and on about Ice Cores.

    What on the good green Earth do Ice Cores, have ANYTHING to do, with Phil Jones suspiciously losing/deleting original data off the CRU servers? What do Ice Cores have anything to do with Phil emailing colleagues talking about being pestered by FoIA requests, and recommending they delete data and ignore FoI's?

    You are making a huge logical mistake here. The science and theory is still changing every day, and the fact they still have such huge problems with modeling should show that this field is still in it's infancy. But you then try to say there can't be a conspiracy by not only those that want to keep their grant money flowing, but also those that have a different agenda that is furthered by taking snippets of science and mixing in pure political opinion (IPCC,UN).

    Those emails can't be said to be out of context, unless you are so biased that you've blinded yourself to anything to do with reality. They in simple words show a couple of people engaged in unethical behavior, and a couple of people saying they believe there has been deception and politics infused into a topic that frankly should have none.

    Please keep the discussion focused. If someone says that none of these fools involved can be believed anymore, that doesn't necessarily follow that all AGW science is null. It might just mean those people have to be disavowed by their own scientific community, and completely cut off from any funding/grant sources. But if we are having a discussion on Climategate and ethics violations, don't reply back with Ice Cores. There does appear to be some small-scale conspiracy with regards to extremely unethical behavior, and the purposeful cloaking with science by the IPCC and UN to mask their political agenda. But neither an Ice Core, or the actual global temps of any time period, have ANYTHING to do with the ethical concerns we are discussing.

    You are trying to mix two different topics, and use a conclusion from one to say you have proof of another. Global Warming has nothing to do with Phil Jones losing data or denying FoI's, and Climategate has nothing to do with Global Warming... it has everything to do with ethics and money. Surely this can't be that hard to comprehend.
  17. l0ckd0wn said:
    that people like yourself write off


    "I didn't read past the OP" (from your first post in this thread)


    Kinda funny how you admit you didn't read any of our posts, and then go on to type that gem about "people like yourself". I have AT LEAST TWICE in this thread said that of course Climategate didn't have anything to do with disproving AGW, and that I wasn't attempting to weigh in or make judgements on the science.

    If you are trying to paint me as an AGW denier, then I would advise you to stick with your first admission of just not having read my posts at all.... because if you did read my posts, then you just have absolutely no clue whatsoever. I haven't once said that AGW is false, ever. Not in this forum, and not anywhere else.

    Might wanna get to the doctor and then buy some prescription reading glasses.
  18. :lol:

    Blah, Blah, Blah. Keep attacking me, you just sound like a climate science doubter even if you claim you're not, that's why I posted the relevant material to the topic.

    It's great you want to beat to death the ethical side of this issue, and frankly I do not disagree with what you are stating, the problem I have is that your whole point doesn't have a point, it's just blowing hot air and creating controversy where there isn't any further. The topic is being brought up again because some shadowy figure is anonymously releasing past information after that topic has already been covered. Where were these emails 2 years ago? Why wait so long? Because it's a talking point to discredit climate science which Repbus will take out of context and use it as rhetoric on why the EPA should be disbanded. While you focus on the old, I'm focusing on the new, and all the new research supports a changing climate.

    If your goal wasn't to discredit climate science, then what was it? The ethics? Yeah, again, covered 2 years ago now.

    The burden of truth relies on you to prove there is a conspiracy, that was one of the indirect points I was trying to make, and the innocent until proven guilty comment stems from that because of your huge reliance on a single point of controversy. So again, you focus on the garbage, I'll continue reading the new discoveries that support climate science.

    So at that, I'll make my way out and you can continue calling people names and belittling them. Have a nice day. :)

    PS
    I did come back in to read the rest of the thread, I just think the whole thing is a GOP talking point and laughable at best.
  19. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    It's a hoax lockdown, and you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

    knarl was not attacking you personally, he was attacking your logic and reasoning as it pertains to climategate. He posts a logical and concise argument, perfectly describing the hoax and you respond with "blah blah blah"? You hypocrite.

    The whole thing is a hoax?

    :lol:

    It's a conspiracy... a huge one, must be...

    This was my whole point Knarl, OMG73 displayed it perfectly. You said you don't deny the science, you just want to keep it ethical, OMG takes it one step further and says its all a joke now. And call me a hypocrite all you like, I'm not the one denying science out of belief and not fact.
  20. wanamingo said:
    Don't know why this hasn't gotten more coverage....I mean i know that the mcRib is back but come on.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html

    Sorry for the huffpo but im sure the blaze has reported on this, maybe even fox.

    Jon Stewart from the daily show claimed this got an amazing 24 seconds of face time on the news!

    Im still skeptical, there is going to be snow tonight therefore climate warming is not happening. I know it in my gut and that means a hell of a lot more than "Scientists". Everyone knows they just want my money to live their luxurious lifestyles.

    [/sarcasm]



    Well once I found out that Mars was heating up slightly and so was other planets in our solar system I knew right away that the Man made global warming was false.

    Global warming is happening but it has very little to do with Man.

    Basically the government is just using it to scam the people like everything else. Right here in Australia the government has already put a carbon tax on us.
  21. squareenixx said:
    Well once I found out that Mars was heating up slightly and so was other planets in our solar system I knew right away that the Man made global warming was false.

    Global warming is happening but it has very little to do with Man.

    Basically the government is just using it to scam the people like everything else. Right here in Australia the government has already put a carbon tax on us.


    I had to do alittle research because Im not familiar with other plantes heating up and found this . A very quick piece about planetary warming, the comments are a bit more revealing. Its actually a very well done skeptics site. The authors actually respond to comment questions (if relevant).

    I dont see why getting infrastructure onto a renewable path is a bad thing. Even if this is not man made wouldn't you like you country to be self sufficient?

    Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).
  22. Oldmangamer_73 said:


    I read your link and agree with it, but did you read mine? The link you provided states that its a seasonal change and the north pole is increasing in size.

    Quote:
    Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.


    I dont know too much about the subject of planets warming, so be gentle.
  23. Oldmangamer_73 said:


    This is nothing new, it literally says that in the full link you provided http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html

    Also the original article is much much more compelling than whatever site that is with Gore breathing fire........

    Again there were some scientists who wanted to push a particular view through, Im not arguing that. Im not sure how many people have been arguing that. It says in the link you provided that the data suggests the planet is warming. Multiple bits of information (Like the ones provided earlier in the thread) have supported the results, and shown a spotlight on the how those numbers were found.

    So in summation the results are good and a few scientists have loose morals. Much like society at large. I believe this is just 5,000 emails keyword searched from over 1,600,000,000.

    Why are you not more worried about climate deniers being funded by oil and gas companies? If you concede that this research is flawed then you MUST conceded that any other research done with private funding(IE the corporations funding these studies have an interest in a certain result) is flawed
  24. But its not a hoax the planet is warming.......

    And what of companies providing funding for climate research? Is that not equally invalid?
  25. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    I haven't seen anyone link to any "corporate funded studies". Do you know of any? If so, can you link and also provide proof via emials, memos, financial records, etc. that the scientists are corrupt and the studies are flawed?


    Here is one person in particular:

    Dr Willie Soon; A Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

    Here are some older articles:
    Polar Bear Junk Science, sponsored by the Koch's

    Koch's "Spanish Study"

    Koch's "Danish Study"

    Google Search for "oil industry climate study"
    "Did I see the Daily Mail link?"
    Sure, and it's rehashing the same thing, over.... and over.... and over.... and over.... ad infinitum.

    I'm going to point back, again, to an American study from a physicist who was a doubter.


    I'll answer questions when I'm called to, but I'm not interested in getting in to tooth and nail debates on this issue any further. As OMG73 pointed out already, neither side, in this local case, has any intention of changing their point of view and thus I will continue to rely on science rather than a strong belief. As I said, Knarl's argument was used in an attempt to discredit the whole issue as OMG73 clearly highlighted. As disingenuous as fudging reports, misrepresenting data for the opposing side has the same effect.
  26. Thanks for the links lockdown and others ... I'll be reading for days now.

    :)
  27. wanamingo said:
    I had to do alittle research because Im not familiar with other plantes heating up and found this . A very quick piece about planetary warming, the comments are a bit more revealing. Its actually a very well done skeptics site. The authors actually respond to comment questions (if relevant).

    I dont see why getting infrastructure onto a renewable path is a bad thing. Even if this is not man made wouldn't you like you country to be self sufficient?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
    Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

    hmmm. i thought solar activity was supposed to reach a high in the next few years. maybe we cannot jump to conclusions because there is so much contradicting data going around from reputable sources. global warming may or may not be true. it is hard to tell. it is something we probably cannot understand for years to come.
  28. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    Your mindset is glaringly crystal clear. Anything private corporations do is inherently evil or bad, period, no exceptions.

    As is your's, thus why I said I'm not going tooth and nail any further. So please, take your pigeonholed views and attack someone else, I just provided links as requested.

    You can have "belief" in whatever you want as you've proven to do time and time again by being such a business sympathizer. Science uses a proofing methodology to backup findings, and this is the whole point of being "peer reviewed," not to necessarily prove the findings, but to duplicate them. If you don't like the scientific method, then why don't you try to change it? Because you're only focus is "those damn liberals" as you've shown time and time again. You don't want proof, you just want to bark down the other side.

    Like I said, I'm not going to go tooth and nail over the whole thing because conservatives don't want to believe the truth, they want to believe whatever supports their point of view.

    I want a better world and I see as preserving the environment, unilateral equality and striving for the sake of humanity, not money, is going to leave our world in a better place. Go back to your super-rich pundits and business funded blog-parrots who are part of the same machine you desperately defend. Maybe when your grandchildren can't play outside because of air quality, can't drink the water because of water quality and can't find a job because of income inequality, maybe then you'll understand the garbage you defend.

    Have a nice day.
  29. Quote:
    Maybe when your grandchildren can't play outside because of air quality, can't drink the water because of water quality and can't find a job because of income inequality

    That will never happen. The government set up the EPA to protect us. they would never let air quality get that bad. if you cant find a job how does one even have an income? why do incomes have to be equal? i guess people who work hard in school go to college/work their way through college dont deserve a higher salary than the slacker high school dropout. but then again that would be only fair. :D
  30. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    What the hell is a business sympathizer anyway? Someone who likes to work for a successful business? WTF?

    A person who puts greed over the impact of such greed on human beings. You are very good at talking about change that would negatively impact a great amount of people while at the same time preserving your own situation. It's human nature, I just feel the need to think in terms of affects that benefit all of us, rather than me financially, mostly because I'm very comfortable financially.

    mjmjpfaff said:
    i guess people who work hard in school go to college/work their way through college dont deserve a higher salary than the slacker high school dropout. but then again that would be only fair. :D

    You're extremely good at taking comments out of context and twisting them, you should go into politics yourself, you'd be great at it. BTW, I'm one of those people and going to college is what opened my eyes, seems you didn't have such an eye opening and makes me wonder if you went to college.

    Also, based off of 1 report that has fudged data, both of you write off the whole of all other scientists research, including the independent study I've linked 2x in this thread. It's plain to see that your opinions are based on ideology and a belief in your politics. I don't care about the political side, really, because I feel both sides in this political game are working towards the same end; their own personal success (I'm talking about both parties here - thus the need for more diverse political atmosphere). Once you guys stop grouping all the research on a topic and writing it all off because one single study had wrong doing, it will be easier to take anything you guys say as valid. This is why I believe in science, this is why I keep looking at your statements and laughing, this is why I pulled Knarl to his wits end (and you guys highlighted exactly what I was talking about): Invented controversy to further the goals of the Oil/Coal industries.

    1 wrong study =/= all scientific research, once this is understood, we can move on to actual substance again.
  31. Dont worry ill be going to college soon. and im only in high school (I have a legit 4.1 gpa, not one of the public schools false 4.7 gpa). your college professors have indoctrinated you very well. my father has warned me about their overwhelmingly liberal ideals. He was a liberal once. born in raised in Canada so you can be sure of that. He has seen the light to say the least.

    that isnt taken out of context. you are calling for more equal wages unless this-
    Quote:
    can't find a job because of income inequality
    is not what you meant to say.

    I've never said that global warming/climate change (which one is it?) isn't real ive stated that it is hard to determine. i said this-
    Quote:
    maybe we cannot jump to conclusions because there is so much contradicting data going around from reputable sources. global warming may or may not be true. it is hard to tell. it is something we probably cannot understand for years to come.
    . You jumped to a conclusion that i do not believe climate change/global warming is real. Look who is reading what i am saying out of context. Just because i believe the EPA will not allow the environment to get so bad that it actually hurts us to be outside and love capitalism does not mean i do not believe it climate change/global warming.

    it is not just one wrong study it is the other many studies that disprove global warming/climate change.
  32. :lol:

    You are a high schooler, I should have known by now from your 1 line remarks. Generally it's either the old or the young who spout crap without sourcing their material; the stereotype continues to live on with bright examples.

    Ya know I wanted to take you seriously, but I can see you are a product of your parents, which is fine, but don't claim to have an indepenent opinion. You have absolutely no idea what lies outside your parents walls, I know I did not at 18, nor my friends, my siblings now at your age and their friends (who I talk to on a regular basis). Once you actually go and have to fend for yourself I might have some time for you, until then you are just a parrot.

    Go to college, get educated, be successful, then act like you have a clue!

    And I wanted to point something out, the EPA may not be around when you have kids. If conservatives and libertarians get their way there will be no room for such an organization within our government, but maybe you missed that being in class learning about all the things you are supposed to know before college. Good, because once you get there you can join the conversation. A majority of all that I learned about government agencies, their function and purpose, came after college (I did not major in political science but am debating going back for a BA in it). Politics is also ever changing and most of your comments come from the hip. As for a changing climate, I wonder how you can form an opinion on a topic in which I doubt you've read much at all. As stated, yet again, there was another independent study done by a climate doubter at Berkley (ya know, the University in Northern California?). But I suppose that must be bogus too.

    I'm done addressing your questions because now that I have an idea where they are coming from; you're just a young ignorant troll, the interwebs are FULL of them.

    Oh, and please link me to a study that completely disproves global warming/climate change, because now the burden of proof lies on you.
  33. i have been said to be a man of few words :D. your words dont hurt me. im definitely not a product of my parents i am so much different from them. but you wouldn't know that because you dont know me. for some reason you are personally attacking me which only shows your immaturity.

    I have a clue. Ill stick to my reading, and you can stick to your college professors.

    Where do you get that i am a textbook conservative/libertarian. I read pieces written by enlightenment philosophers and i find them very interesting and I like what they are saying. I feel governments should be in place to protect us and the EPA protects us from people polluting our drinking water and things like that. Overall i think the EPA is good but it needs some restructuring.

    Quote:
    Oh, and please link me to a study that completely disproves global warming/climate change, because now the burden of proof lies on you.

    there are many studies out there that i am sure that you have seen on how the ice is growing on the south pole. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

    again ill try to make this clear: i never said climate change/global warming doesnt exist. there is too much contradicting evidence out there to be sure one side is absolutely true or not

    Quote:
    young ignorant troll

    - tasteful
  34. That Fox News link didn't prove your point, not at all and not definitely. You said there are studies that disprove climate change, and you yourself said there are conflicting studies yet it's been proven somehow.

    Ignorant troll is about the best I can come up with, because you come in, say few words with no backing and after that there is little contribution.

    I can only hope you don't take ignorant as derogatory, although you are, because it means you don't know; it doesn't mean you are stupid, it doesn't mean you are universally uneducated, it means you are uninformed about a topic and I could only hope you would know that with your 4.1gpa.

    Also, I never said you were a conservative/libertarian, I was talking about them as a whole. I cannot refer to you as any political stance, because I don't even know if you can vote, which further accentuates why I said you were ignorant. The troll part comes in for making statements you can't back up, leave no real information or is just plainly used in talking point rhetoric.

    There is all kinds of data proving that our climate is changing. I've never used "global warming" once because it doesn't imply the correct understanding of the climate, only that something is warming which is inherently untrue.

    We've gone through multiple ice ages and seen major changes across the globe from coastal flooding to la nina/el nino getting more and more erratic, to weather events that are getting more and more violent. The climate is going through some changes and although the research into what carbon is doing to the environment is still in discussion, the fact that changes are happening is aparent worldwide on all continents.

    Again, "believe" what you want, but nearly everything I've read on this very subject talks about changes in our environment/climate, whether it's heating up or cooling down isn't the issue. The problem here is how much impact humans are having on the environment and that is leading just about all scientists from all disciplines to one general consensus that the climate has been impacted by humans occupying the earth. Plain and simple.

    Also, I call trolls out on boards when I see them, and I got the feeling you were trolling me, thus I made the statement.

    As for the "indoctrination" statement you made about professors, why exactly do you think most of the higher educated people in the world are liberal or more progressive minded? Why do you think they are our educators, our scientists, those people who work towards a greater good, those people who think the world can be a better place, those people who strive hard to help others (this is a general statement, not a specific one. There are plenty of conservative people in all these fields, they just generally aren't the majority.)?
  35. im done with your personal attacks. seems like you are "trolling" me. dont think i need to source that.
  36. mjmjpfaff said:
    im done with your personal attacks. seems like you are "trolling" me. dont think i need to source that.

    To each their own. Here is a little tid bit I was looking for. It answers the question of intelligence for conservative vs more liberal view points, the point I was hitting home with retorting to your "indoctrinated by professors" statement. I'd like to add that most professors at major colleges are astute in their fields, thus why they teach.
    http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives

    And like I stated, you come in, make some blanket statement with no support, then leave. Tis true of trolls, thus why I try to backup everything I state with a source of some reputation.

    Be done, and 4 years from now maybe you can come in and add to the conversation rather than distracting from it.
  37. talk to you tomorrow l0ckd0wn :D
  38. mj I am impressed you didn't resort to a personal attack so well done.

    Lockdown, I don't like the fact that you have taken a personal swipe at this young lad when it is pretty clear he is keen to learn and participate in the discussione here.

    A decent education doesn't entitle anyone to belittle and bash other users.

    Lets continue the debate in a peacefull manner guys.

    the climate debate is a good one ... so I encourage you to post links and present your cases here.

    :)
  39. My formal apology.

    It's the general reaction I get when dealing with some so young, it's happened on many forums elsewhere and thus my response.

    I still do encourage siting where information is gathered from, and the only thing he has listed is over 2 years old. Since then more studies have been done, so I only hope the quality of information improves on the doubting side of thing. I don't deny there was some wrong doing at East Anglia, but that doesn't constitute the entirity of the argument and this is exactly what happened by multiple members, taking one study and attempting to discredit all other information on the subject. I find that disingenuous.
  40. Cheers.
  41. New approach to determining human impact on climate gives same answer - Must be more liberal lies and propaganda!

    Link is to Ars Technica, known site for science and technology. Source article was published in Nature Geoscience, 2011.
  42. The lack of the decline of the suns energies over the past decade, since they play off each other, but they included all the other info, as far as dates go, but witheld the suns, shows somethings not right there, as they stated right up front how they balance each other out, then drop the suns input, as of 1950, but nothing lately, and its been fairly recent this has been obseved, as the early 70s , they were concerned with an ice age returning.
    Too many mixed signals, not enough info, while they quote it, they dont include it all within the same timeframes, omitting info.
    Somethings not right, tho I do admire Ars, just unconvincing.
    If the suns been quiet lately, and remember those well respected scientists that insisted Japan wouldnt be habitable after WW2, well, I really doubt this
    Its more scare than share
  43. global weather patterns since 2050 bc and predictions to 2040 ad- http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
  44. l0ckd0wn said:

    The problem here is how much impact humans are having on the environment and that is leading just about all scientists from all disciplines to one general consensus that the climate has been impacted by humans occupying the earth. Plain and simple.

    There's no such thing as "scientific consensus".

    Scientific consensus once was:
    There are four elements: earth, water, air, and fire.
    The Earth is flat.
    "Bad air" causes disease.
  45. Oldmangamer_73 said:
    And then, there is THIS!

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/story.html?id=5847032

    They actually made this announcement on Dec. 7th. Not a peep in the US media about it until today on Drudge.


    I think you're digging a wee bit too hard oldman.

    What I gathered was they are pushing their predictions back a month+ because they're not accurate. They will still be providing data on the chances of hurricanes and predictions of hurricanes in the following year.

    http://www.westword.com/2006-06-29/news/the-skeptic/full

    William Gray doesn't believe in computer generated models, hes an old school meteorologist. BTW the other fellow mentioned in your article is only 26! Smart guy.

    http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2011/dec2011/dec2011.pdf

    heres the 2012 report its actually kinda interesting stuff, Id recommend it just to give the authors a chance to discuss why they are discontinuing.

    Also I dont understand the David Attenburough link....... Its a TV show....... Not news or anything else. Its entertainment.
  46. So the point here is: Computer models are producing useless predictions?

    It never said that good old pouring over hundreds of thousands of pages of climate data by humans is any better at getting an accurate answer.

    This should be a call to arms to get more accurate models. Not a dismissal of computer generated guesses.

    The world wasn't built in a day, and the scientific model of the solar system was built in a day either.

    I still dont entirely understand that polar bear thing. Or the fact that this has been "scrubbed" from the net.
  47. Ask any weatherman to predict the weather 7 days from now.....
Ask a new question

Read More

World News