It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

page: 17
166
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
But, yeah, I'll be patient, the crack ATS denier squad are on the game. Perhaps they'll find something. Keep digging guys! The map to Soros' secret bunker must be in there, lol.
-Melatonin

Is that all you can come up with? "Keep digging guys!" You sound like a young, rather ignorant person spouting off here. Whatever your reasons to keep sitting in front of your computer and knocking anything that may point to conspiracy here, they aren't because you are just oh so much smarter than the rest of us, that is just plain obvious. Dude, people know business practices and business ethics, and these emails don't fit in that catagory. If I or anyone I know in the science world at our corporations were to write these kinds of emails, we'd be fired. Emails are monitored these days, and even if they weren't, these are just not professional. The lack of professionalism in itself in these emails points to the unethical posibilities these scientists practiced. You should really be "Doing Stuff that Matters" like your location says instead of just asking others to all the work for you.

edit to clarify who I was speaking to. Still figuring out the quote button.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by SunnyDee]

Well the ptb have their stooges who like to try and defend government sponsored institutions.

For me this is great news and worth celebrating with a beer


Cheers to the hackers, AJ and the climate skeptics out there




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
From thestar.com:

www.thestar.com...


Hamilton: Why media tell climate story poorly


By Tyler Hamilton
Energy and Technology Columnist


I apologize on behalf of my profession.

If it's true that Canadians and Americans have become less concerned about the potential impact of climate change, and that more consider global warming a hoax, some blame can certainly be directed at the news media.

"The media (are) giving an equal seat at the table to a lot of non-qualified scientists," Julio Betancourt, a senior scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, told a group of environment and energy reporters during a week-long learning retreat in New Mexico.

I was among them, listening to Betancourt and two of his colleagues describe the measurable impacts climate change is having on the U.S. southwest. Drought. More frequent and damaging forest fires. Northward migration of forest and animal species. Hotter, longer growing seasons. Less snow pack. Earlier snow melt.

"The scientific evidence reported in peer-reviewed journals is growing by the day, and it suggests the pace of climate change has surpassed the worst-case scenarios predicted just a few years ago.

Betancourt is the first to admit the science is constantly evolving and that the work at hand is highly complex. One challenge is separating the part of climate change caused by naturally occurring cyclical systems from the part caused by humans, who since the Industrial Revolution have dumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate.

Clearly there is an interaction between the two. But can scientists explain it with bulletproof precision using predictive models everyone can agree on? No, of course not. That's not how science works.

More difficult is that scientists such as Betancourt are realizing the climate changes observed are not happening in a gradual, predictable fashion but, instead, in sudden steps. Systems reach a certain threshold of environmental stress and then "pop," they act quickly to restabilize.

These changes also happen regionally, making it difficult for people in one region of the world to appreciate disruptive changes going on elsewhere.

Not surprisingly, those looking to stall action on climate change – or who altogether deny that humanity is contributing to global warming – are exploiting this complexity and lack of certainty.

A recent Pew Research Center poll of 1,500 Americans found that 57 per cent believed there was solid scientific evidence that the globe is warming, down from 77 per cent in 2007. The changing attitudes coincide with a growing effort to discredit climate science in the lead-up to the Copenhagen talks on Dec. 7 and efforts by U.S. legislators to cobble together climate legislation that would signal America's commitment to reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions.

It also coincides with an economic downturn, during which people are concerned most about their finances. There's also a strong likelihood that people want to hear that maybe this climate change stuff is all a bad dream.

It's much more difficult to have a story in the newspaper or a TV news segment, explaining the latest study in Nature or Science, than it is to have an unqualified scientist or "spokesman" offer a pithy, controversial quote or sound bite not necessarily grounded in fact.

This reality has given the fossil-fuel lobby a major leg up, writes James Hoggan, co-author of a Climate Cover-Up and founder of DeSmogBlog.com. Hoggan's must-read book describes in disturbing detail the well-oiled campaign to confuse the public and confound the science, creating enough doubt to thwart meaningful action and protect a world economic order built around the burning of oil, coal, and natural gas.

The Heartland Institute, Friends of Science, and Natural Resources Stewardship Project are among the groups that make their Rolodex of "experts" available to comment on climate issues.

But, as Hoggan points out, most of those experts are anything but. Lift their veil and they typically are funded by the fossil-fuel industry, long-retired climate scientists who have not published peer-reviewed papers for many years, or scientists who are experts but not necessarily in climate science.

"If a doctor recommended that you undergo an innovative new surgical procedure, you might seek a second opinion, but you'd probably ask another surgeon," writes Hoggan, a public-relations veteran who is also chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation.

"You wouldn't check with your local carpenter, and you certainly wouldn't ask a representative of the drug company whose product would be rendered irrelevant if you had the operation."

Still, many journalists under deadline and without the time to verify credentials, journalists who do not follow climate science and the news around it, continue to give these so-called experts a soapbox to stand on. Even those with time to spare often offer up the soapbox out of some misplaced attempt at balance, giving the impression that the scientific community is deeply divided.

Once their comments are published, the blogs take over and public confusion grows deeper. Mark Twain said it best: "A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots." The Internet has only accelerated the speed of travel.

It's why we've been seeing silly stories about "global cooling" appear in recent months, or articles about thickening Arctic ice, or the "Global Warming Conspiracy." On Friday, the latest conspiracy story began making its rounds. Hackers accessed email messages from some climate scientists on an Internet server at the University of East Anglia in Britain.

The emails, from what I've read, do show that not all scientists agree, that some scientists don't like other scientists, and that some scientists are struggling with the complexity of their work. What these emails do not show is that there's any conspiracy or that consensus around the reality of human-influenced global warming is beginning to crack.

Still, that won't stop the skeptics from cherry picking what's in those emails and claiming this is some kind of smoking gun that will derail Copenhagen. The blogosphere is abuzz, and news media are never ones to turn down a juicy controversy. The timing of the hack makes it all the more suspicious, but no less dramatic.

It's a shame.

I asked Betancourt during his New Mexico talk why the scientific community has not done a better job of battling the misinformation campaign and speaking as a more united front.

The problem, he said, is working scientists don't tend to be communications specialists but are up against people who are. So, for honest, accurate describing of the science of climate, "it's more up to the media, and less up to us."


Original article



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

They appear to be clearly talking about using the same levels of CO2 in the models so the runs are consistent. If the projections are wrong, all the runs are wrong in the same way. It's about consistency in methods. Makes sense.



nah, 'wrong in the same way' that's reading a little more into the passage than was revealed. from what i gathered so far, there are usually a lot of ways to get something wrong and only a few limited ways to get it right. wrong or right can only be determined by results and there is only a relatively narrow band of correct results. iow, it sounds plausible they were talking about adjusting their results to present a monolithic picture. consensus and all that.

which leaves a stale taste and i'm far from the only one who sees the inherent problems with these paragraphs, but as i said there's much worse, both in terms of vitriol and a desire to conceal.

the main thrust should really be directed at revealing the conflicting views within the community in order to erode arguments of immediate urgency and dispute that everything is 'settled' and AGW by CO2 an 'established fact'

consider the usual denial of solar influence in public. behind the scenes, people are obviously asking the same questions: www.abovetopsecret.com...

no debate, no new facts, just unity. whose line is that again?


denouncing people as crooks won't do much, too many people are sympathetic anyways, so to speak and the rest does not care. only revealing weakness affects public opinion i think, but i'm digressing.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
From Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'


Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.
By Matthew Moore
Published: 8:45AM GMT 23 Nov 2009


Thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

This morning Lord Lawson, who has reinvented himself as a prominent climate change sceptic since leaving front line politics, demanded that the apparent deception be fully investigated.

He claimed that the credibility of the university's world-renowned Climatic Research Unit - and British science - were under threat.

"They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth," he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.

"If there's an explanation for what's going on they can make that explanation."

Around 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents were stolen from UEA computers by hackers last week and uploaded on to a Russian server before circulating on websites run by climate change sceptics.

Some of the correspondence indicates that the manipulation of data was widespread among global warming researchers.

One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre's director, in 1999, reads: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Prof Jones has insisted that he used the word "trick" to mean a "clever thing to do", rather than to indicate deception. He has denied manipulating data.

Another scientist whose name appears in the documents accused the hackers of attempting to undermine the drive for a global consensus at next month's Copenhagen summit.

Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research accused climate change sceptics of cherry-picking the documents and taking them out of context.

Meanwhile, hopes that a legally binding treaty on cutting emissions will be agreed at Copenhagen have been boosted by the news that more than 60 world leaders plan to attend.

Last week Lord Lawson, who served as chancellor for six years under Margaret Thatcher, told The Daily Telegraph that he planned to establish a think tank to challenge the consensus that drastic action is needed to combat global warming.


Original article



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
nah, 'wrong in the same way' that's reading a little more into the passage than was revealed. from what i gathered so far, there are usually a lot of ways to get something wrong and only a few limited ways to get it right. wrong or right can only be determined by results and there is only a relatively narrow band of correct results. iow, it sounds plausible they were talking about adjusting their results to present a monolithic picture. consensus and all that.


Unless the wrong and right is related to the scenario data that is being plugged into models.

The emails are talking clearly about future CO2 emissions - which are realistic? And as was commented by one of the authors - none can be assumed realistic, as no-one knows the future and it will be based on the actions of political figures. But they will still be right or wrong cf. the real-world emissions that unfold over time.

These projected CO2 scenarios are the data being used for the projecting models. Determined beforehand to give an acceptable range of potential futures. The sentence you are pulling out of the email 'so if we are wrong blah blah' is preceded by 'we must use exactly those CO2 levels...'

Normally, a piece of writing follows a logical structure. To take the second part in isolation without references to that preceding to make some sort of nefarious interpretation is nothing more than deceptive quote-mining.

Nice to see one external media article has noted the use of these emails for propaganda purposes.

Caveat Emptor.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Unless the wrong and right is related to the scenario data that is being plugged into models.



there is no way identical data input will result in identical output unless they are all doing the same thing, as in using the same code. what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? i guess (but don't know) that right would mean sensor readings following projections.

the context again i presume will save them, even from their 'adjusted' answers and the travesty of being unable to reconcile recent trends with models. maybe they will need a new or at least improved artificial adjustment in their PR work....

again from ipcc-santer2.txt:



1. I learned about the Chapter 8 text changes (which you made
between its acceptance and its printing) from material mailed out
by the Global Climate Coalition on May 17. Included there were the
Oct 9, 1995 draft and the printed version of Chap 8, as well as a
covering memo from Don Rheem "Revisions to Pre-approved IPCC
Documents" and an analysis of the changes entitled "The IPCC:
Institutionalized "Scientific Cleansing". The GCC did a careful
comparison of the two versions of Chap 8; the fact that they are an
industry group cannot and should not be used to invalidate their
work.

2. I am persuaded that the revisions have altered the tone of
Chapter 8 and made it conform more closely to the IPCC Summary.

Your view, obviously, is quite different; but then again, you would
not be considered as an unbiased party. My recommendation is that
the GCC should mail their analysis to you and your co-authors so
that you can understand their point of view.



hell, if all fails, a revision might be in order. that way, at least the summary will be 'right'. perhaps i'm just being unfair, but the 'context' for me has been established. there's always this looming apprehension of being considered biased, isn't there? maybe writing summaries as expected, ie. to create a short overview would have helped their credibility.


let's me add a prediction: the next line will probably read something like: 'these people weren't involved in the science' just shifting files around, right?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Man I really don't know what to believe about all this!

I mean, there is no smoking gun in this material so far!

Many people got hung up on the term "TRICK" and think this is the smoking gun, but in mathematics a "TRICK" is just about setting up easy rules for a complicated problem.

I fail to see the real evidence here so far, maybe someone could be kind enough to point me in the right direction?

If I didn't knew better I would say that this hacker job is made by the private 'Oil Industry' and opponents of alternative energies - and is a deperately political attempt to disrupt the meeting in Copenhagen in December with disinformation - how's that for a conspiracy?


(In European media the U.S and Obama has already said that they can unfortunately NOT YET sign any papers and make an agreement in Copenhagen - they need some more time they said!

So if actually an agreement is made infront of the TV cameras it will only be for a political show for them to do so infront of the sheeple to give an "united front impression" to all peasants and to save all their faces - but in reality the agreement would be a fake "non-binding one" judicially, but will show the peasants that they have the right INTENTIONS to sign a real agreement later when they are ready!)

Aarrgh! - the modus operandi of Politicians!



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chevalerous
Man I really don't know what to believe about all this!

I mean, there is no smoking gun in this material so far!

Many people got hung up on the term "TRICK" and think this is the smoking gun, but in mathematics a "TRICK" is just about setting up easy rules for a complicated problem.

I fail to see the real evidence here so far, maybe someone could be kind enough to point me in the right direction?

If I didn't knew better I would say that this hacker job is made by the private 'Oil Industry' and opponents of alternative energies - and is a deperately political attempt to disrupt the meeting in Copenhagen in December with disinformation - how's that for a conspiracy?


(In European media the U.S and Obama has already said that they can unfortunately NOT YET sign any papers and make an agreement in Copenhagen - they need some more time they said!

So if actually an agreement is made infront of the TV cameras it will only be for a political show for them to do so infront of the sheeple to give an "united front impression" to all peasants and to save all their faces - but in reality the agreement would be a fake "non-binding one" judicially, but will show the peasants that they have the right INTENTIONS to sign a real agreement later when they are ready!)

Aarrgh! - the modus operandi of Politicians!



theres far more than just the TRICKS email...theres emails describing how this isnt about truth...how CO2 is a political subject..how they are not supposed to get real results..just results they need to get...how opponents should be kept out of the discussion etc etc etc..

one of these emails would mean nothing..but all of them together tell a pretty good story..

[edit on 23-11-2009 by alienesque]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
From Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk...


University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes


Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.


From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted


From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"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!"

The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.


From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.


From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”

Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.


From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.


From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
"Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future."

The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
there is no way identical data input will result in identical output unless they are all doing the same thing, as in using the same code. what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? i guess (but don't know) that right would mean sensor readings following projections.

the context again i presume will save them, even from their 'adjusted' answers and the travesty of being unable to reconcile recent trends with models. maybe they will need a new or at least improved artificial adjustment in their PR work....


It isn't even talking about the output. The emails are clearly talking about projected CO2 emissions.

Of course the context will 'save' them, it's clear enough in these particular emails. Now apply what you've been trying to do with even more fragmented discussions bereft of context...


hell, if all fails, a revision might be in order. that way, at least the summary will be 'right'. perhaps i'm just being unfair, but the 'context' for me has been established. there's always this looming apprehension of being considered biased, isn't there? maybe writing summaries as expected, ie. to create a short overview would have helped their credibility.


Now you're extending into a completely different discussion about a completely different issue, lol.

It looks to be something to do with the 'global climate coalition' and their issues with revisions to IPCC drafts. Who is this email even from? Who is recommending the GCC to send articles to someone ('you') and their colleagues ('coauthors')?

This is ridiculous. You have people quoting emails from random people who have emailed the likes of Jones with concerns as evidence of the validity of concerns. It's a joke. The one that comes to mind is some PhuD who's a regular on McIntyre's blog who criticises Briffa's response to the Yamal palaver - that's being paraded as climate scientists being concerned.

For example, you might have emailed Jones in the last week and said, 'yes, Phil, we know it's all a fraud to fill Gore's coffers with gold. Just keep it on the lowdown - delete this email within 5 days' and that might well be there, lol.

You have the conclusion already - conspiracy, fraud, and hoax. And wearing those goggles your judgement is completely clouded. It's like a conspiracy version of pareidolia.

If there is evidence of real scientific fraud in these stolen documents, it'll make the light of day. At the moment, you're just blindly flailing. It's more reflective on yourselves than the scientists you're smearing.

But carry-on...

[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
From NZHerald:

www.nzherald.co.nz...


NZ climate scientist falls victim to hackers


By Vaimoana Tapaleao
4:00 AM Tuesday Nov 24, 2009



A New Zealand scientist has been caught up in an international computer hacking stunt in which thousands of climate change documents and private emails have been leaked on the internet.

Climate scientist Jim Salinger is among the many who have had private emails and documents posted on a blogsite, after computer hackers apparently infiltrated a research centre at the University of East Anglia in Britain.

Dr Salinger's emails, which date from the middle of this year, form part of an exchange between a number of climate experts on how to respond to a paper by Auckland University scientist Chris de Freitas and two others.

That paper - published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - claimed the el nino and la nina weather patterns were a dominant influence on climate change.

In one July email, Dr Salinger reacts to the de Freitas paper: "Is there an opportunity to write a letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this?? ... If it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their position."

The group went on to co-author a response to the paper.

Dr Salinger said last night that the emails had been taken "completely and unfairly out of context".

"As scientists we are always debating and discussing. These are just normal discussions between colleagues - just like you emailing your friends. To take an email out of context is very dishonest.

"They're also trying to ruinpeople's credibility and I think that's disgusting," Dr Salinger said.

Dr de Freitas is an associate professor at the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, and a well-known sceptic about manmade global warming. He could not be contacted last night, but told the Epoch Times he considered the emails "quite revealing".

"I think it's serious because there have been many different people claiming the so-called 'objective experts' have been not totally 100 per cent with their claims, and certainly the data they have used to back up their claims."

Another climate change scientist whose private emails were hacked believes the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's global climate summit in Denmark.

Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, said the hackers distributed only those documents that could help attempts by sceptics to undermine the scientific consensus on manmade climate change.

The respected atmospheric scientist said it did not appear that all the documents had been distributed.

About 1000 emails and 3000 documents have been posted on websites and seized on by climate change sceptics, who claim correspondence shows collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.

At least 65 world leaders will attend the Copenhagen climate summit, where representatives of 191 nations will seek agreement on a new global treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.


Original article



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
This story lands only now on CNN:

edition.cnn.com...


Hacked e-mails fuel climate change debate


By Kim Zetter
November 23, 2009 -- Updated 1631 GMT (0031 HKT)


(WIRED) -- An online debate over global warming science has broken out after an unknown hacker broke into the e-mail server at a prominent climate-research center, stole more than a thousand e-mails about global warming and posted them online.

Global warming skeptics are seizing on portions of the messages as evidence that scientists are colluding and warping data to fit the theory of global warming, but researchers say the e-mails are being taken out of context and just show scientists engaged in frank discussion.

The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, is one of the United Kingdom's leading climate research centers and has been a strong proponent of the position that global warming is real and has human causes. The center confirmed the hack to the Australian news magazine Investigate, but did not say whether all the documents and correspondence posted were authentic and unaltered.

The stolen cache includes more than 1,000 e-mails and more than 3,000 documents, some containing code. They were posted anonymously to an FTP server in Russia. The hacker then posted a link to the 61-MB file on the blog Air Vent.

The hacker's message that accompanied the link read: "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents."

The e-mails, which cover a decade of correspondence, are getting a lot of attention among bloggers who point to statements in them that they say suggest the scientists colluded and manipulated data to support their global warming viewpoints. The bloggers highlight a statement in one 1999 e-mail from Phil Jones, director of the research center:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Another e-mail from Jones dated last year with the subject line "IPCC and FOI" is a request to Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Pennsylvania, asking him to delete certain e-mails. Bloggers allege that Jones was trying to destroy data that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Neither the Climate Research Unit nor Mann, who is currently out of the country, responded to a request for comment.

Bloggers allege that an e-mail from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, suggests that reality contradicts scientific claims about global warming:

"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low....

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he's making in it by not reading the article cited in his e-mail. That article, called "An Imperative for Climate Change Planning," actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

"It says we don't have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures -- including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators -- that global warming is continuing," he says.

Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context.

"There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax," he told Threat Level. "There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation.

"It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way."

Trenberth agrees.

"If you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists," he says. "The unfortunate thing about this is that people can cherry pick and take things out of context."


Original article



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Regardless of the emails and what anybody may or may not think of them...it is fairly obvious now that the data used to support the theory of global warming is being massaged to present uniform results.

If another scientist were to start with the same data set and massage the data in a slightly different way, he could come out with an entirely different conclusion.

Its obvious that the science supporting the theory of global warming is not as solid as we have been led to believe.

Based on the IPCC report and politicians are raising taxes on everything and investing money on energy conservation to the point of economic ruin.

If the theory of global warming is correct - we risk having to adjust how we live on this planet (ie populations may have to migrate, some species will become extinct, other species will flourish, ect ect ect. ) In short we risk having to adapt.

If the theory of global warming is incorrect - and we act on it - we will see the same devestation of the human population but now it will be caused by the destruction of the economy.



Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv
"...FOIA\documents\briffa-treering-external\belfast\garrybog\pine\gb5fil". Filetype: FILE.

It would be interesting to see what the file named "gb5fil" would contain. This file is apparently holding information regarding my city Belfast.


I've located a website that you can view this gb5fil file at.
You may be disappointed though, its just a header comment followed by a string of numbers, ending in a comment.

gb5fil


NORTHERN IRELAND
GARRY BOG FIVE FILTERED

COMMENT - DMB 12-AUG-91 18 SAMPLE FILTERED MASTER BOG OAK TREES 3451BC TO 2353BC


If you go back a page you will see all the documents\briffa-treering-external\belfast\garrybog\pine files.

Go back a few more pages on the site you will see that all the files are viewable including email, documents and program code. It also has a better search engine than other sites I've seen, due to the preview it gives.



[edit on 11/23/09 by makeitso]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Of course the context will 'save' them, it's clear enough in these particular emails.



this thread is full of dodgy quotes, one alone is not enough to even form an opinion, in conjunction, they reveal a puzzle, which, put together, reveals an image that isn't flattering. maybe that has to be expected, i frankly don't care, what i see is that they are unable to explain the current trend (the 'travesty' again) and that's one so called 'skeptic' argument, which is essentially prohibited in public unless you find pleasure in being labelled a C-bot or similar.

despite these internal squabbles (which are apparently genuine, although ambiguity will always remain) the quotes at hand are sufficient to determine that presenting a solid front towards the public enjoys a higher priority than adressing scientific topics. iow, many of the worst fears of so called deniers or skeptics have been confirmed. successful predictions amount to nothing if the subject isn't popular?


as for the rest, this one quote has been debated to exhaustion, i think. the mail did contain questionable passages, that's all i wanted to point out and again, i'm not convinced that questioning the ethic framework if these people is worth it. It's all about debunking the doomsday-AGW scenario, after all. so, i won't stick to one of the less impressive quotes just because you disagree.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
this thread is full of dodgy quotes, one alone is not enough to even form an opinion, in conjunction, they reveal a puzzle, which, put together, reveals an image that isn't flattering. maybe that has to be expected, i frankly don't care, what i see is that they are unable to explain the current trend (the 'travesty' again) and that's one so called 'skeptic' argument, which is essentially prohibited in public unless you find pleasure in being labelled a C-bot or similar.


You do know scientists are human and will do what other humans do in private? lol. Anyone who thinks that calling so-and-so an idiot is of any consequence to the science needs to get a life. Or that in private scientists are concerned about people subverting the process of peer-review, or that scientists get p!ssed at being pestered by time-wasters like McIntyre, or that scientists take the p!ss out of others work.

That Trenberth quote has been discussed by himself - he even has a recent paper on the issue of tracking the energy balance. There are certain things that are not really discussed any more in the literature - that climate is changing, that humans are having a significant impact, that climate will continue to change whilst we continue on our path. That's well-studied and accepted.

Unless someone produces evidence to suggest otherwise, the science will focus on the questions that are without decent answers. And that's what the likes of Trenberth are doing. If you're interested in the questions he's asking, the paper's below:

Trenberth 2009


Kudos for actually engaging on this subject, more interesting than the current circle-j.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Long Lance
this thread is full of dodgy quotes, one alone is not enough to even form an opinion, in conjunction, they reveal a puzzle, which, put together, reveals an image that isn't flattering. maybe that has to be expected, i frankly don't care, what i see is that they are unable to explain the current trend (the 'travesty' again) and that's one so called 'skeptic' argument, which is essentially prohibited in public unless you find pleasure in being labelled a C-bot or similar.


You do know scientists are human and will do what other humans do in private? lol. Anyone who thinks that calling so-and-so an idiot is of any consequence to the science needs to get a life. Or that in private scientists are concerned about people subverting the process of peer-review, or that scientists get p!ssed at being pestered by time-wasters like McIntyre, or that scientists take the p!ss out of others work.

That Trenberth quote has been discussed by himself - he even has a recent paper on the issue of tracking the energy balance. There are certain things that are not really discussed any more in the literature - that climate is changing, that humans are having a significant impact, that climate will continue to change whilst we continue on our path. That's well-studied and accepted.

Unless someone produces evidence to suggest otherwise, the science will focus on the questions that are without decent answers. And that's what the likes of Trenberth are doing. If you're interested in the questions he's asking, the paper's below:

Trenberth 2009


Kudos for actually engaging on this subject, more interesting than the current circle-j.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]


hi....if its all pretty harmless..can you explain why someone would say that 'its not about the truth' in a scientific study thats set up find out whats going on with the weather...

i understand one can interpret many things to fit ones view of the world..but i find some of things ive read in these emails beyond the realms of being 'interpretable'....maybe im wrong...

[edit on 23-11-2009 by alienesque]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienesque
hi....if its all pretty harmless..can you explain why someone would say that 'its not about the truth' in a scientific study thats set up find out whats going on with the weather...

i understand one can interpret many things to fit ones view of the world..but i find some of things ive read in these emails beyond the realms of being 'interpretable'....maybe im wrong...


Perhaps you are.

I'm not the type to go digging through others knicker drawers, so you'll need to give me more than 'it's not about the truth'.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but this isn't situation doesn't even begin to approach the level of private e-mails. These e-mails were sent using school equipment and they should not expect any type of privacy. Especially considering that this research is publicly funded.

The HARRY_README.txt file is very telling. As I said earlier the data and code and other items in what was released will give context to to e-mails and right now the context of the e-mails look exactly how they read. As a bunch of activist trying to silence dissent and get outcomes to match the theory.

Anybody that can think for themselves can see that the basis of AGW Theory is completely false. C02 driven man made Global Warming is false and should be disregarded as not possible. Even the data that they have published shows that the theory doesn't add up.

The theory has been debunked. After all that is exactly what science is based upon. You come up with a theory and you debunk the theory, if the theory cannot be debunked then the theory moves to the next stage, and on it's way to becoming a scientific law.

Further more, if the output of a computer mode does not produce the results you are expecting you change the model, not the data. With these leaked documents we see that they have changed the data and not the models. The worst part about this whole situation, is because of these people there has been absolutely no progress in finding out how the climate works in over three decades.

To sum it up, you are trying to defend something that is indefensible that doesn't even begin to resemble science. Not only that, but you are defending the fact that billions upon billions of dollars have been wasted. The documents in that leak are very disturbing. They are so disturbing in fact that it could be 50+ years before climate science can even begin to start again.

Just read HARRY_README.txt. That one document pretty much sums up the whole debate, as in there is no debate because they don't even have a reliable data set to go off of.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
With these leaked documents we see that they have changed the data and not the models.


Which data and which models?

Which studies does this affect?




top topics



 
166
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join