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.

 

HARRY_READ_ME: New bombshell document on global warming leaked!

page: 4
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


First of all, I am not worked up.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Also, it seems that EvolvedMinistry is playing everyone, getting them to engage is what amounts to an off-topic tangent, based on the derailing technique of incoherent-counter-argument.

In this technique, person A says "Apples are healthy and should be eaten", and then person B, using the technique says "But pesticides cause cancer." This person knows that by shifting the conversation to the pesticides, he will get people to stop talking about apples, and he also knows that by ignoring any attempt to convince him that we aren't talking about pesticides, he will get people ranting at him, trying to sway him from his apparent illogical mind. This is all an attempt to hijack the conversation, deflect the true topic at hand, and perhaps get people banned or the entire topic terminated.

This is the same technique used by government-paid riot-inciters who show up at peaceful demonstrations.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
This topic and the entire "Climate-Gate" subject is really about the fact that finally, we who have long suspected that science has become a big business, and that it is highly driven by political and financial concerns, have some solid evidence to support those educated guesses and intuitive hunches. Finally, we have respected science organizations caught with their hand in the cookie jar, their pants to the ankles, and looks of embarrassment in their eyes.

One of the problems with the ATS discussion model becomes apparent when a person reads the OPs initial post, and then simply posts their response without fully reading all the other responses first to see where the conversation has evolved to, or what other evidence has been presented. Kind of reminds me of times that I've been in a long conversation with a few people, and some other person walks up and starts offering their comments, solely in response to what they heard being said as they walked up.

The fact is, many other great pieces of information have been presented in the responses to this original post, and should be looked at by anyone interested in seeing even more proof of worldwide collusion by those science organizations who have "sold out" to the system.

It seems that all the institutions of the world have gone this way, whether it be medicine, journalism, or science. Nearly everyone seems to be "on the take", pandering like Oliver Twist to the Fagin "stakeholders", hoping for another bowl of money... but only if they tow the party agenda.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Kia Ora from a fellow kiwi
. Speaking of New Zealand... Have you seen this?
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one

This is big. It's going to be interesting to see how NIWA are going to explain this one.

You can pretty much forget about an honest debate with John, but good luck with that. I've tried, but ask a question he can't answer and he's nowhere to be found, only to pop up on another thread throwing around more baseless arguments. And I agree with your summation of another poster who has no intention to learn, just to muddy the waters (where's the mods?).

I'm looking forward to seeing some more actual intelligent discussion to this thread.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Waiting patiently as EM searches google, bing, and yahoo..

Hopefully in the other 95% percent of the world, it is clear that they lied and manipulated data. Data that the WORLD environmental policy is and will be based upon. They made a mockery of science.


The argument that one is denying global warming because He is calling out the charlatans and the Vig is not logical. They are not even in the same ball park.

Almost all of us want clean, cheap (free does exist) energy. Put my money towards that instead of some psuedo-scientists with a god complex and delusions of grandeur.

We will continue to deal with conservation and environmental issues. That is enough without having to deal with a problem that seems to have been, essentially, pulled out of the interior walls of a cabals' collective rectum.

I think some of that grant money needs to come back.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Yes, that information is presented in one of the earlier responses to this post
I also located this really good summary of the data in New Zealand, and an analysis, along with actual data from various cities around New Zealand.

Enjoy!

New Zealand climategate participation



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


Your thread title states

New bombshell document


It's hardly a bombshell on man-made global warming. It may be a bombshell for the scientist's future at this institute, should his behaviour be unprofessional. But again I state that there's no evidence against current established scientific evidence of man-made global warming, in any of these emails.

Stating that people get excited over what are probably mundane emails, is not a form of attack on anyone - it's merely an observation across many threads.

The "hide the decline" email was a bombshell last week, now it's explained for those who think rationally and checked out the relevant research papers. You can't deny you're claiming this email is also a bombshell, whilst you cherry pick bits of it and take whatever you want out of context - so you can take yourself and other gullible ATS members for a quick joy ride, before most of them finally learn what the email is "actually" talking about.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by john124]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Already answered those questions ages ago.

It's plausible that some of the emails have been doctored. Enjoy trying to fit emails as "evidence" around your conspiracy - you won't get very far!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
BTW, nice to see how once again the AGW zombies derail ANOTHER thread which has facts and evidence that destroys the religion of the AGW zombies....

To the OP, great work.


What the OP has stated in this thread has been corroborated in other threads.

The AGW hoax crew, such as Hansen have even posted as proof of their AGW lie erroneous data, which they didn't check just because the erroneous data corroborated their claims, later to find that the temperatures were exagerated.

There is also the fact that surface stations used to take temperatures are located mostly inside cities, close to AC exhausts, close to bbq, in parking lots, etc, ALL of which exagerates temperatures because of the urban heat island effect which is found in cities.

Despite the claims of the AGW fans these sources of heat that are part of the urban heat island effect are being accounted for, this is not true.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by downisreallyup
 


I couldn't agree any more with you. It is the same old tactic by the AGW zombies, ignore EVERYTHING that refutes their claims, and post illogical mumbling hoping that noone looks at their links and sees their claims are EMPTY, EXAGERATIONS and even LIES...

Oil spills are"environmental" problems, but they do not cause Global Warming, or Climate Change, and a tax on the developed countries on CO2 is NOT going to stop oil spills.

In fact the proposals made by the UN, the policymakers, the Al Gorians, and the environmentalists to have the developed countries implement a tax on CO2 will only allow for countries like China, India, and Russia among others to transfer wealth to their side of the world, meanwhile they pollute the world with real chemicals, not to mention anthropogenic CO2... And what happens in the developed world?... people get poorer thanks to less jobs, and more taxes meanwhile the plastic island in the Pacific Ocean gets bigger, and China, India, Russia, among some others keep releasing toxic chemicals like there is no tomorrow in the rivers, which eventually goes to oceans and reach the developed world... Nice way to "save the world"...


It seems that "saving the world" now-a-days means to make the politicians like Al Gore richer, alongside the UN politicians and other rich elites. It means puting taxes on a perfectly good atmospheric gas which ALL life on Earth needs meanwhile implementing more laws to control people in the developed world...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Already answered those questions ages ago.

It's plausible that some of the emails have been doctored. Enjoy trying to fit emails as "evidence" around your conspiracy - you won't get very far!


It is also possible that you are nothing more than a mindless zombie who the aliens brainwashed for their evil plan to take over the world.... Good luck proving otherwise....



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


I'm going to try and give a short response here, because it is clear that you have nothing but denials to make, which only shows that you must be connected in some way to the "climate change" community. Any unbiased citizen would be highly interested to find out the "truth" in these matters, but because you want to put forth the idea that the emails were somehow doctored, only goes to show your bias, which greatly weakens your position. If those CRU emails were doctored (which I admit could be a remote possibility), then you'd have to explain how this same thing could be so evident in other countries, such as the revelation yesterday that New Zealand and perhaps Japan have also experienced similar chicanery.

Why don't you open your heart and mind and take an honest and unbiased look at the data that comes from those who disagree with you? What? Only looking at peer-reviewed studies published in the big magazines? Well, that whole "peer review" process is exactly what is being questioned here. Peer-review could very well be another word for "collusion."

I mean, do you actually expect anyone to believe that a scientist who wanted to stay in good with the scientific community would dare publish anything counter to the pre-ordained message? Of course not. We all know of great scientists who were stone-walled and treated as outcasts for the rest of their lives because they had a conscience and wouldn't go along with the pack. When men break their conscience, they are quite willing to "Con Science!"

What nearly everyone with a brain knows is that when it comes to any kind of serious research, it's all about the money, money, money... that is as true as it's ever been. That very fact serves to make true unbiased scientific research a truly rare thing in this money-centered world.

This is indeed a bombshell in that it serves to do further destruction to the image (yes, the IMAGE) of the climate change scientific community. This HARRY_READ_ME.txt document written by a frustrated programmer working at the very same facility where the released emails came from is just one more nail in the coffin, showing that the data gathered from weather stations is anything but reliable and consistent. I have worked with many software professionals, and I can tell you that "Harry's" experience is anything but typical, except in the very shoddiest of situations. That in itself makes this a "bombshell" because it adds further fuel to the fire that was ignited by those released emails from CRU.

What would have been a bombshell in the other direction is if that log file showed a programmer working with well-documented, consistent, complete data, gathered from all over the world. If he had written how complete and supportive the data was in support of anthropogenic climate change, and how solid the software was that was used to analyze the data, that would have been a huge bombshell for you guys.

So much for a short reply... enough said...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 


Already answered those questions ages ago.

It's plausible that some of the emails have been doctored. Enjoy trying to fit emails as "evidence" around your conspiracy - you won't get very far!


And now you resort to lying, and I'm going to call you on it. You see, there is a page on your public profile that shows what posts you have made. Do you want me to link it for you?

You did not answer those questions and you still haven't!!

You said it was "obvious" that the emails had been "added to". This implies that you thought their was something damaging in them.
Some emails have been confirmed as genuine, yet NONE have been confirmed as "added to". So now your excuse is it's "plausible" they have been doctored? What a joke.

Now are you going to admit to your fraud? I'm guessing you'll just try and dismiss it like you do for your AGW priests.

I know it must be hard for you, considering you've believed in a lie for so long (trust me, I once believed it too), but lieing to justify your original lie won't do you any good. As the saying goes, it's not the lie that get's you in trouble, it's the cover up.

I guess I should be happy, you proved me right in saying there is no honest debate with you. But to be honest, I'm just dissapointed.


Your continue to defend these guys even though they show clear signs of hiding relevent data, not letting other view points get heard, lieing about deleting data etc etc. So you'll continue to trust them until they get prosecuted in a court of law, huh? I guess any religous zealot would commend your faith, at least.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by abefrohman
The scary thing is not the shoddy tools at the service of these scientists. It's the fact that this guy openly says he will "gloss over" the info. that doesn't jive with the conclusion needed.

That forces us to assume that there is a foregone conclusion.

I wonder who told Harry what that foregone conclusion needed to be?

my point exactly



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


This information you provided EvolvedMinistry reminds me of that old phrase "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with $^&*^$"... if you could, please provide some kind of substantiated information from a reputable university, such as the following:

Easy to understand research

thanks for this post, the link points to easy to understand research indeed. that's what science should be like, very clear.
for those who prefer listening to scientists and take scientists' opinion as their own, please listen to Freeman Dyson, who talks about how computer models are currently irrelevant in understanding of the carbon processes, due to the lack of good input data, and how important research subjects get shoved on the shelf.

P1
Talks about some events that made certain directions in Earth research awash with money, yet other, more important research starved of funding.


P2
Global Warming model is about surface temperatures, it takes surface temperatures as input. There aren't nearly enough instruments that measure this data over oceans, only the land. So your input data is very very biased. Besides, there are other Earth processes that are more important and easier to measure, for example stratosphere cooling.
He goes on to say interesting things about real threats of climate change, which we will never find out because of the hype over global warming.


Could it be that someone is pushing GW to mask the real threats, drawing our attention and effort to useless arguments? just a thought



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
Here is another gem:





Finally, as a professional software engineer, I can state, after reading through the entire document, that this README file looks authentic in it's content. The technical lingo used by Mr. Ian "Harry" Harris is realistic sounding, and the various data sets interspersed throughout the document do look valid and within context of the surrounding commentary.

Cheers!



I concur. I'm not a an expert software engineer, but I do have a Batchelors Degree in Computer Science and so a firm grasp of software engineering and this does seem authentic content. Although the meteorologcal lingo did go over my head somewhat, it was not enough to disguise the content.

I am however a data systems manager and I can fully sympathise with Harry at the system he's trying to get his head around. I love the fact that as time goes on, his language gets less formal and swear words start entering his vocabulary. Yep... been there mate!!

Just keep on fiddling those statistics and no one will know (and make sure you have written orders from above to cover your own arriss!

[edit to fix markup tags...doh!]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by nik1halo]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Ok, this is the biggest news I read in my life! Wow, but I still dont understand WHY the Government want us to believe that the earth is getting warmer? Can someone help me to understand



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I posted this somewhere else yesterday, but seems more relevant here:

I have been reading through the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file from the set of CRU data.
This 'project' seems to be being conducted by a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs from what I read so far.


The scripts differ internally but - you guessed it! - the descriptions at the start are identical. WHAT IS GOING ON? Given that the 'README_GRIDDING.txt' file is dated 'Mar 30 2004' we will have to assume that the originally-stated scripts must be used.

...Someone once explained to me what happens when you assume!


So what is this mysterious variable 'nf' that isn't being set? Well strangely, it's in Mark N's 'rdbin.pro'. I say strangely because this is a generic prog that's used all over the place! Nonetheless it does have what certainly looks like a bug:

...yeah, lets just move lines from outside an IF/ENDIF block and place them inside the IF/ENDIF, even though the code is "used all over the place!". Not exactly confidence boosting, is it?


so we have to assume these are his best suggestions.

...we're assuming again!


I decided to mod the program to use the 'nostn' option if the length is 0. Hope that's right - the synthetics are read in first and the station data is added to that grid so this should be OK.. and it looks OK:

...and if it's not it doesn't matter because "it looks OK".


I tried using the 'stn' option of anomdtb.for. Not completely sure what it's supposed to do, but no matter as it didn't work:

...just taking a stab-in-the dark?
...And if it had given matching data then that would have been the solution?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I just got ferociously attacked on my blog by an AGW religious zealot for posting a very simple article outlining this story. There was no opinion given, just the facts by a well respected MSM reporter.

My goodness me.
If anything convinces me that this has nothing to do with science but rather cultish zealotry, that was it. It appears they have made gods out of the AGW scientists and advocates and anything these idols do is sacred and holy.

I haven't seen anything this disturbing since the "Leave Britney Alone!" video.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by airlouche
 

Why is this being pushed? For some, it's a type of religious fervour. They are going to save the world. They have finally found a purpose in life. They do not want to hear anything to the contrary as this would mess up their mission.

For some, it's big money...I'm talking BIG money. Talk to any wind developer. These people are not environmentalists, they are mafiaso in sleazy suits. Talk to anyone who has been sold on the carbon tax, cap and trade or any of the other ponzi schemes. They have been convinced that this will save the world and it MUST be done. It has been turned into a moral issue.

The politicians go with the flow of the moment for votes. The UN? They want to transfer trillions of $$ to poor countries (or the leaders of) which I'm sure will be put to good use (sarcasm).

It's a giant snowball hurdling down a mountain. Truth had better get the hell out of the way!



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join