It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Climategate: GOP Opens Probe Into Climate-Change E-Mails

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Animal

Global Warming is quite real and as it stands today there is a sizable consensus within the scientific community that supports the notion that humans are a contributing factor.

Animal, now you are presuming that the lie isn't widespread. If it is, (and I am playing the devils advocate here), then could it not be that the notion you are claiming as truth is actually false?

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
Ok once again show me one single scientific peer reviewed study that shows Global Climate Change does not exist.

Just one.

The global climate always changes. Always has and always will. Man or no man. You might reconsider how you word things. And about that consensus based on peer reviewed papers argument, most of the papers dont actually say humans are CAUSING it, rather they discuss the warming and its affects. During a warm period, search for papers related to 'global climate change' and you can bet you'll find papers talking about warming, or the other way around were it a cooling trend.

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
What massive fraud?

Where do you people come up with this malarky.

The finding that have been put forth by the IPCC has been peer reviewed by the world's scientific community.

Did you not read the first page of the thread? Their emails prove prove that they witheld data from scientitific review, illegally deleted incriminating data and corresponance, hijack the literature peer review process, manipulated data, and themselves even have doubts about global warming.

And so far they havent discredited one single email or document, instead they've only confirmed even some of the most damning as authentic, and you can bet they're doing all the damage control they can get away with.

And what of the notes from within their computer code, I hadnt gotten into that yet:

Notes From Within Their Computer Code:

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$

pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.


; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

From documents\harris-tree\

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE Mann et al. reconstruction
; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries


“Use dist to specify the correlation decay distance for the climate
variable being interpolated – necessary information to determine where to add dummy or synthetic data.”

; calculate 1961-1990 synthetic normal from adjusted tmn
print,'Calculating synthetic frs normal'

for iy=nor1,nor2 do begin


; HUGREG=Hugershoff regions, ABDREG=age-banded regions, HUGGRID=Hugershoff grid
; The calibrated (uncorrected) versions of all these data sets are used.
; However, the same adjustment is then applied to the corrected version of
; the grid Hugershoff data, so that both uncorrected and corrected versions
; are available with the appropriate low frequency variability.

There is some
; ambiguity during the modern period here, however, because the corrected
; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest
; scales of observed temperature over recent decades - so a new adjustment
; would be unwelcome.
Therefore, the adjustment term is scaled back towards
; zero when being applied to the corrected data set, so that it is linearly
; interpolated from its 1950 value to zero at 1970 and kept at zero thereafter.


; Combines the directly calibrated MXD data set with the PCR-based
; reconstruction of gridded temperatures. There are various PCR models to
; use, according to period and spatial coverage of MXD data. We always
; use the later model (based on most MXD data), but we have to decide whether
; a grid box that was successfully reconstructed using an earlier subset of
; the MXD should be used throughout (or at all) if later subsets failed to
; successfully reconstruct it. **For now, I'm using them throughout.**
; Restore MXD gridded dataset
print,'Reading in MXD data'
; g,mxdyear,mxdnyr,fdcalibu,fdcalibc,mxdfd2,timey,fdseas
; Use the "corrected" calibrated version


; Computes EOFs of infilled calibrated MXD gridded dataset.
; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
; Do not usually rotate, since this loses the common volcanic and global
; warming signal, and results in regional-mean series instead.
; Generally use the correlation matrix EOFs.


; We have previously ( calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data ( We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set.
We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

What this all shows is that virtually all proxy data for historical temperatures is deeply flawed, because when you get to the modern period where we know the actual temp, the proxy data doesnt match.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 25-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 04:54 PM
New study shows that New Zealand temps for the past 150 have been artificially adjusted to show warming where thre has been virtually none. Note: This phony graph wasn't made by those indicted in the emails, but it does provide a window into what phrases such as "corrected", "altered", "hide the decline", "artificially adjusted", and so on:


Posted 25 November 2009

"There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years. But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?" Researchers find records adjusted to represent 'warming' when raw data show temperatures have been stable.
LINK to download pdf file

Furthermore, urban heat island effect is a major issue with land station data temps rising over the past 150 years. The fact that New Zealands temps have hardly risen, would seem to explain why it is proxy data (tree rings from forests, ice cores from glaciers) would show a decline when surface temp station data has risen since the 1940's & 60's (when urbanization was rapidly expanding ).

Sunspot graph, for kicks:

[edit on 25-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:35 PM

Everyone should plant a tree for every book Al Gore sells.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:12 PM
Global Warming is a sham.

This is a dangerous religion that seeks to control peoples behaviour in the name of saving the planet.

Sadly Hitler was right when he said:

"It's a fortunate thing for governments that the people don't think."

People follow these crooks as they make millions and drive around in jets and fancy cars. They will have average folk living in tree houses while they live the good life. Useful idiots will follow these crooks.

This can truly be used to do all kinds of evil things.

This is what the Bible says about the antichrist:

And through his policy also he shall cause craft (fraid, deceit, treachery)to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many

Global warming is a perfect system for an antichrist system.

It doesn't only seek to control behaviour but they can kill billions of people in the name of reducing the population and in the name of saving the planet.

Global warming fanatics are a danger to humanity, liberty and freedom.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Matrix Rising]

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by Carseller4

Yeah hacked e-mails are not important and reliable

except in your case - these have not been proven to be hacked emails.
Some anonymous guy posted them claiming that they were.

Big difference

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:01 PM
I hope this is the start of something BIG...I hope that this rips the lid off the whole climate change/global warming farce. This has been nothing but a scam from the get-go. I believe the enviromentalists have been scammed by the same people they choose to protest... the big corporations who are the problem in the first place.Follow the money trail and see who has really benefitted from all this....Al Gore is now a billionaire and for what??? Nothing has changed and even If we were to try and meet these ridiculous targets every car, train and plane would have to be taken off the road and it still wouldn't make a dent in the carbon emmissions worldwide. Maybe once this starts we can start the whole debate all over again and using the right numbers get a real perspective on the enviroment. Carbon is not such a bad thing and what we should be focusing on is overall cleaning up of the enviroment not some BS cap and trade scheme where all the money is going to go toward some foreign government. If there is inquiries and hearings and If there is new evidience of fraud I hope they bring these people responsible to justice and charge with fraud...Starting with Big Al himself!!!

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:56 PM
Contest on BBC to submit video, here's your chance to get heard..

BBC News
BBC World Service Page last updated at 13:25 GMT, Tuesday, 24 November 2009

Copenhagen: What's your solution?

If you had the microphone at the Copenhagen climate summit, what would you say?

What is your message to world leaders on global warming?

BBC News would like you to send us your message for Copenhagen.
The best video messages we receive will be featured in a special televised debate on BBC News, at the climax of the conference.

Last chance

The UN Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark, on December 7.

Example of a video message - Children send their messages to Barack Obama
Some say it is our last chance to save the world from runaway climate change.

Many hope that world leaders will agree significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions; and compensation for countries suffering from global warming.

But talks so far have been slow, with key nations cagey to commit. There are fears that no firm action will be agreed.

• Are you worried about climate change?

• What deal would you strike in Copenhagen?

• Who should cut their emissions? By how much? And how should they make these cuts?

• How would you improve the negotiation process?

Send us your comments in video

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:14 AM
If you can think one minute about climate change, I have the BIG QUESTION : FOR WHO WANT TO BE A MILLIONAIRE !

What would be more dangerous for humanity : ICE AGE or GLOBAL WARMING ?

You know that the ice age happen regularly on the planet : and maybe we have change this fact.

So what do you think of the global warming itself ? Human have changed the system : cool. Is it bad or good after all ?

At least, to me, it is the least worst solution.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by psychederic]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:04 PM
this point of view. While I am sure there is credibility to this mans critique I do not see this critique as fair in generalized terms over all researchers. I also have to say that the fact that the IPCC could very well be working to deceive this raises serious questions about the intentions of the world's governments and their use of this issue to do something...

Exhibit C: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.

OK, so we've now gone from being fed a so-called "concensus" of scientists to less than half which believe in Anthropogenic global climate change... The peers don't seem to believe the supposedly peer-reviewed IPCC documents now, do they?

From the source your are reffering to:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

So 45% explicitly (7%) or implicitly(38%) endorse an anthropogenic link.
Only 6% reject an anthropogenic link.
Finally 48% are neutral.

To say that 'less than half believe' in climate change is a a logical fallacy in that you can not make an assumption of what any of the neutral articles content was or what their authors views were. A neutral article could have been studying anything related to climate variation without doing so in a manner related to proving or disproving the anthropogenic connection.

I am happy to see the 6% who refute the standard and are working to ensure the reality of the situation is uncovered.

In this article however I think Marc Morano is once again spinning the information in his favor, sound familiar (think IPCC).

Exhibit D: Comment on "The Spatial Extent of 20th-Century Warmth in the Context of the Past 1200 Years"

Osborn and Briffa (Reports, 10 February 2006, p. 841) identified anomalous periods of warmth or cold in the Northern Hemisphere that were synchronous across 14 temperature-sensitive proxies. However, their finding that the spatial extent of 20th-century warming is exceptional ignores the effect of proxy screening on the corresponding significance levels. After appropriate correction, the significance of the 20th-century warming anomaly disappears.

Yet another dissenting peer review which furthers the colapse of the idea that climate change is anything other than a natural cycle.

Looks like sound research to me.

Exhibit E: Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.

Hmmm... climate changes not linked to rise in CO2 gas? In a peer reviewed study, no less?

Ya in the words of Marc Morano representing Sen. Inhofe. His word is not exactly partial. If I have the time I would go through the several papers he briefly cites, but I don't so I can not say for certain he is not backed up by legitimate work, however I am skeptical of anything that comes out of this mans mouth.

Exhibit F: IPCC "peer-review" process questioned long before incriminating emails were made public

In “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” McLean writes, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.”

So why do you cite peer reviewed work in this post then refute the notion of peer review?

While I agree it is not a perfect system but it is a very worthy system and its critique is in my opinion a straw man.

Please take the time to read this entire article as it may open your eyes to just how accurate the recent exposure of IPCC's suppression of devicive opinions is. The scientific method has absolutely NO PLACE for ad-hominem dismissal of dissenting viewpoints and dissenting findings, but that's exactly what the IPCC has done. They attack any scientist who dares disagree with their "findings" rather than providing data and assaulting the dissenter's countering evidence. NOT SCIENTIFIC, purely a political and wealth driven machine.

I absolutely agree with the above sentiment. While I am still on the side of an anthropogenic link I think that the issue needs to be thoroughly investigated and if there is amble evidence that the current views are fabricated the truth needs to be uncovered.

Exhibit G: A Variable Sun Paces Millennial Climate

Most scientists have viewed the sun's unvarying brightness as the one constant in the ever-changing climate system. Now, in a paper published online this week by Science (, paleoceanographers report that the climate of the northern North Atlantic has warmed and cooled nine times in the past 12,000 years in step with the waxing and waning of the sun. Some researchers say the data make solar variability the leading hypothesis to explain the roughly 1500-year oscillation of climate seen since the last ice age, and that the sun could also add to the greenhouse warming of the next few centuries.

Would you care to see more?

I would not be surprised in the least if the sun played a major roll in climate variation. However it in no way disproves a human connection either.

All in all, nice post mate.

Thanks for sharing.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Animal]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:59 PM

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
Ok once again show me one single scientific peer reviewed study that shows Global Climate Change does not exist.

Just one.

For those who believe Global Climate change does exist but does not agree that Humans are responsible show me one clear peer reviewed scientific study that refutes the findings of the worlds leading climatologists.

Just one.

Moreover, claiming that the entire world wide scientific peer review process is somehow a sham by one person's email is absolute lunacy. If you come out tomorrow with a theory backed by solid scientific data there is no possible way on Earth that everyone could refute your findings. No matter how sinister you think they are.

That is the whole point, the facts are the facts. The data has to support your argument. We have our mountain of data to make our case...where's yours?

This site is all about cutting through the crap and disinformation right? well who do you believe more, the worlds top 215 leading climatologist that make little to nothing on thier findings or Big Oil and the trillions and power they stand to loose.

Seriously who is the one being duped here. Especially considering you have no scientific studies that have been peer reviewed to backup your case.

You all clammer for people to WAKE UP, yet here you are sucking on the teet of Big oil and their lies with nothing to back up their claim.

Meanwhile your winters are getting shorter and much colder and the summers are getting warmer. Species are dying and our planet ability to support humans is eroding away.

Instead of catching up with the rest of the world on climate change and starting new industries to make crazy amounts of money, create thousands of new jobs and industries and finally....FINALLY tell big oil to go take an F-ing would all still insist on arguing on something tant amount to the world being flat.

China who is now jumping on the green technology bandwagon should be the biggest wake up call that just maybe you should get your heads out of your collective keisters.

How about this petition signed by 31 THOUSAND American scientists against global warming?

Also, isn't it funny how it went from "global warming" to the much more vague "climate change". That sure was convenient.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Exemplar]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by Exemplar

They're not interested in a consensus of individual humans, instead they appeal to figure-headed scientific beaurocracy's with profit and job security motivations. Think of these groups as corporations compared to consumers. The consumer might sell the Doritos at the store they work at, and people wanting to buy the chips is good for business, but this is vastly different than the motivations of the board of directors at Frito-lay.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 08:03 AM
Concentrated ignorance, just add water.

Once again I ask for one instance of peer reviewed scientific studies that show conclusively that Global Climate change is not happening and what do I get as a retort.

1) A new study that was released that showed Global warming is in fact happening but not so much from CO2 but instead from soot from burning coal. Would help if you actually read your own evidence that only further makes my point.

2) Oh the classic 31 thousand scientists from the Climate Change Petition group. You know the one's who have been found to be a bunch of misleading fraudulent aresholes. All you would have to do is 20 seconds worth of research on Wikipedia to figure that brain buster out.

3) Stolen emails (that still have not been individually verified) that proves nothing, shows nothing and more importantly means nothing. All that matters is the studies published that have been peer reviewed. If any scientists are withholding data or information that would go against their case it would be brought up during the review process.

4) The Bible said the AntiChrist would deceive many so clearly Al Gore and IPCC should not be trusted


This is all you have. This is your evidence to back up your ridiculous claim that go's against the entire breath of the scientific community.

Deny ignorance HA! ...not on this BB.

Like I said in the beginning.....ignorance concentrated just add water.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in