What a bunch of agitprop.
Dude.
Read this.
Software developer explains hacked climate model source code
The emails are a joke compared to the code.
This is a total fraud.
Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked, page 1
privacy
Topic started on 4-12-2009 @ 02:28 PM by ALLis0NE
There is a great small series of videos regarding Climate Change on YouTube, and it covers a lot of issues.
A) A good majority of the video describes how both sides of the debate, the proponents and skeptics of man-made global warming have BOTH been modifying data, and or making incorrect statements, and messing with graphs for various reasons.
It shows how a majority of the skeptics are the ones who are jumping to conclusions and modifying data and lying about graphs much worse than anything supplied by the hacked e-mails.
B) It highlights many misconceptions about the reason for peoples thoughts about "global cooling" and a mythical coming of an Ice Age. It shows how media, and various other talking heads have talked about a coming Ice Age from incorrect data, and or wrongly quoting scientists.
C) It describes the reason for many peoples thoughts about the temperature in the past. People claim that CO2 levels were much higher, yet the Earth was much cooler in the past, and so CO2 has no effect on warming..... while they were totally ignoring solar irradiation levels and facts about the sun being much cooler in the past.
D) It highlights how there is more than one factor that governs our weather, and the Sun and CO2 are actually the most important of the factors. In my opinion it shows that CO2 IS a problem we must all face.
E) It completely debunks the hacked e-mails explaining that "hide the decline" was NOT talking about global temperatures, but about data obtained from the growth rings from a tree trunk. It also explains that the scientist from the hacked e-mails had already expressed the same concerns in public on the internet, and you didn't even need the hacked e-mails to see it.
It also brings up a good point about thoughts of the e-mails being faked. It shows how Rush L. thinks there is too many e-mails and it is too intricate to be faked, yet that would mean that Rush L. also thinks that thousands and thousands of graphs and data from thousands of scientists over many years was some how faked and or incorrect.
There is a lot more to these videos, and I hope you watch them all.
1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate
2. Climate Change -- the objections
3 - Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth
4 - Climate Change -- Gore vs. Durkin
5 - Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
6 - Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
Earths weather is easily modified. Within the videos above is an example of weather changes made after 9-11. When the jets were grounded for 3 days after 9-11, our Earth made some interesting weather changes that have been linked to the contrails that jets make. It shows that jets alone have an effect on the weather. Imagine what else we do that effects our weather. Like the billions of vehicles for example.
In my opinion, denying that CO2 effects our weather, and denying that humans create enough CO2 to make a major change, is to deny basic science and records taken over the years by many different scientists, and to deny your own ability to figure it out on your own, and get the same conclusion.
en.wikipedia.org...
I guess all of the above are "in on it", right? This conspiracy is almost as complex as 911.
[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]
A) A good majority of the video describes how both sides of the debate, the proponents and skeptics of man-made global warming have BOTH been modifying data, and or making incorrect statements, and messing with graphs for various reasons.
It shows how a majority of the skeptics are the ones who are jumping to conclusions and modifying data and lying about graphs much worse than anything supplied by the hacked e-mails.
B) It highlights many misconceptions about the reason for peoples thoughts about "global cooling" and a mythical coming of an Ice Age. It shows how media, and various other talking heads have talked about a coming Ice Age from incorrect data, and or wrongly quoting scientists.
C) It describes the reason for many peoples thoughts about the temperature in the past. People claim that CO2 levels were much higher, yet the Earth was much cooler in the past, and so CO2 has no effect on warming..... while they were totally ignoring solar irradiation levels and facts about the sun being much cooler in the past.
D) It highlights how there is more than one factor that governs our weather, and the Sun and CO2 are actually the most important of the factors. In my opinion it shows that CO2 IS a problem we must all face.
E) It completely debunks the hacked e-mails explaining that "hide the decline" was NOT talking about global temperatures, but about data obtained from the growth rings from a tree trunk. It also explains that the scientist from the hacked e-mails had already expressed the same concerns in public on the internet, and you didn't even need the hacked e-mails to see it.
It also brings up a good point about thoughts of the e-mails being faked. It shows how Rush L. thinks there is too many e-mails and it is too intricate to be faked, yet that would mean that Rush L. also thinks that thousands and thousands of graphs and data from thousands of scientists over many years was some how faked and or incorrect.
There is a lot more to these videos, and I hope you watch them all.
1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate
2. Climate Change -- the objections
3 - Climate Change -- Anatomy of a myth
4 - Climate Change -- Gore vs. Durkin
5 - Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
6 - Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
Earths weather is easily modified. Within the videos above is an example of weather changes made after 9-11. When the jets were grounded for 3 days after 9-11, our Earth made some interesting weather changes that have been linked to the contrails that jets make. It shows that jets alone have an effect on the weather. Imagine what else we do that effects our weather. Like the billions of vehicles for example.
In my opinion, denying that CO2 effects our weather, and denying that humans create enough CO2 to make a major change, is to deny basic science and records taken over the years by many different scientists, and to deny your own ability to figure it out on your own, and get the same conclusion.
en.wikipedia.org...
These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]
The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.
I guess all of the above are "in on it", right? This conspiracy is almost as complex as 911.
[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]
reply posted on 4-12-2009 @ 03:09 PM by ALLis0NE
reply to post by mnemeth1
Your last two posts are a complete joke. You are just another person who ignores scientific data and the scientific process, and would rather believe a few crappy e-mails that do NOT even touch the amount of scientific data supporting man-made climate change.
I bet you didn't even watch the videos.
-edit to add-
The tree ring data could have dropped do to local changes, not global changes. There could also be many other factors... not just one.
Get a clue.
[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]
Your last two posts are a complete joke. You are just another person who ignores scientific data and the scientific process, and would rather believe a few crappy e-mails that do NOT even touch the amount of scientific data supporting man-made climate change.
I bet you didn't even watch the videos.
-edit to add-
The tree ring data could have dropped do to local changes, not global changes. There could also be many other factors... not just one.
Get a clue.
[edit on 4-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]
reply posted on 4-12-2009 @ 03:16 PM by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by ALLis0NE
I don't see how the "hacked e-mails" could be debunked, the people that wrote them have even come out and said that they are authentic. The fact is the e-mails are just a 1/4 of what was leaked. The majority of the stuff that was leaked was code.
The code shows blatant fraud among the "climate clique". There is not enough data to conclude either way if AGW is happening or not. That is the facts. Tree rings do not make good thermometers and sediment samples also don't make good thermometers.
The "science" that has been conducted is not science at it has been people trying to fit the data to a pre-conceived conclusion. That is the facts.
I don't see how the "hacked e-mails" could be debunked, the people that wrote them have even come out and said that they are authentic. The fact is the e-mails are just a 1/4 of what was leaked. The majority of the stuff that was leaked was code.
The code shows blatant fraud among the "climate clique". There is not enough data to conclude either way if AGW is happening or not. That is the facts. Tree rings do not make good thermometers and sediment samples also don't make good thermometers.
The "science" that has been conducted is not science at it has been people trying to fit the data to a pre-conceived conclusion. That is the facts.
reply posted on 4-12-2009 @ 03:53 PM by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by ALLis0NE
Look the thread title says "Hacked E-mails Debunked". The e-mails are impossible to debunk because they are true. What you are attempting in your thread title is mind games. You trying to equate that the e-mails are not true, when in fact they are.
The e-mails show them stacking the peer-review process, blackballing journals that publish "skeptical" papers, it shows them colluding to delete data, etc. Not to mention the most damaging thing to come out after these e-mails that add validity the actual context of the e-mails was when the CRU came out and said they deleted the raw-data and the only data that remains is "value-added" data.
Okay beyond all that, you can sit here and say the e-mails were "misinterpreted" all you want, but that does nothing to explain why the computer code is full of errors, and hard-coded adjustments, that alter that data to arrive at the pre-conceived conclusion that Man-Made Global Warming is real. I've read most of the e-mails for myself, and I have also looked over the code myself.
The code is FRAUDULENT there is no way around that. You can say whatever you want about the e-mails, but the fact of the matter is the computer code gives context to the e-mails and from the code we can conclude that the "trick" to "hide the decline" was to get rid of the inconvenient drop in temperature that didn't match their pre-conceived conclusion that Man is responsible for the earth warming.
The fact is what has been conducted is not "science" it is fraudulent activity in order to come to a pre-conceived conclusion that Man is Responsible for the earth Warming. That is the facts. The computer code PROVES it.
Look the thread title says "Hacked E-mails Debunked". The e-mails are impossible to debunk because they are true. What you are attempting in your thread title is mind games. You trying to equate that the e-mails are not true, when in fact they are.
The e-mails show them stacking the peer-review process, blackballing journals that publish "skeptical" papers, it shows them colluding to delete data, etc. Not to mention the most damaging thing to come out after these e-mails that add validity the actual context of the e-mails was when the CRU came out and said they deleted the raw-data and the only data that remains is "value-added" data.
Okay beyond all that, you can sit here and say the e-mails were "misinterpreted" all you want, but that does nothing to explain why the computer code is full of errors, and hard-coded adjustments, that alter that data to arrive at the pre-conceived conclusion that Man-Made Global Warming is real. I've read most of the e-mails for myself, and I have also looked over the code myself.
The code is FRAUDULENT there is no way around that. You can say whatever you want about the e-mails, but the fact of the matter is the computer code gives context to the e-mails and from the code we can conclude that the "trick" to "hide the decline" was to get rid of the inconvenient drop in temperature that didn't match their pre-conceived conclusion that Man is responsible for the earth warming.
The fact is what has been conducted is not "science" it is fraudulent activity in order to come to a pre-conceived conclusion that Man is Responsible for the earth Warming. That is the facts. The computer code PROVES it.
reply posted on 4-12-2009 @ 04:09 PM by ALLis0NE
reply to post by mnemeth1
This is a reply to the "smoothing" and the "padding" graph issue brought up by your link.
Take a look at these two graphs of the EUR/USD exchange rates for December 1, 2009.
This is the 15 minute chart for 1/12/2009:
This is the 1 hour chart for 1/12/2009:
Both charts are of the SAME exact data. However, the 15 minute chart shows a HUGE DECLINE, but on the 1 hour chart there is a much smaller decline. This is because the hour chart is "smoother".... If I wanted to accurately show the decline in the hour chart, I would have to "pad" it a little.
When you smooth data, and then you average the data, there will be inclines and declines that aren't really there.
What the scientist in the e-mail is doing, is comparing two different charts that have both been smoothed. They compare them to see how they relate to each other. If one goes up, they would like the other to go up in the same section. If one goes down, the other should show a down in the same space. This would mean they both are linked together...
However, when you smooth the graphs, and then average them, the ups and downs are different from reality. One chart may show a down, and the other an up in the same day, but that isn't accurate representation.
It's very hard to explain, unless you are familiar with creating graphs. It could cause a lot of confusion for all of you....
However I have had to create many graphs programmatically with C++, and I know the issues with smoothing. It doesn't represent ALL of the data, so some ups and downs will look different.
This is a reply to the "smoothing" and the "padding" graph issue brought up by your link.
Take a look at these two graphs of the EUR/USD exchange rates for December 1, 2009.
This is the 15 minute chart for 1/12/2009:
This is the 1 hour chart for 1/12/2009:
Both charts are of the SAME exact data. However, the 15 minute chart shows a HUGE DECLINE, but on the 1 hour chart there is a much smaller decline. This is because the hour chart is "smoother".... If I wanted to accurately show the decline in the hour chart, I would have to "pad" it a little.
When you smooth data, and then you average the data, there will be inclines and declines that aren't really there.
What the scientist in the e-mail is doing, is comparing two different charts that have both been smoothed. They compare them to see how they relate to each other. If one goes up, they would like the other to go up in the same section. If one goes down, the other should show a down in the same space. This would mean they both are linked together...
However, when you smooth the graphs, and then average them, the ups and downs are different from reality. One chart may show a down, and the other an up in the same day, but that isn't accurate representation.
It's very hard to explain, unless you are familiar with creating graphs. It could cause a lot of confusion for all of you....
However I have had to create many graphs programmatically with C++, and I know the issues with smoothing. It doesn't represent ALL of the data, so some ups and downs will look different.
reply posted on 4-12-2009 @ 04:14 PM by ALLis0NE
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by ALLis0NE
Look the thread title says "Hacked E-mails Debunked". The e-mails are impossible to debunk because they are true. What you are attempting in your thread title is mind games. You trying to equate that the e-mails are not true, when in fact they are.
Wow, you don't even know what you are talking about.
The issues regarding the e-mails are debunked. Not the validness of the e-mails.
I never once said the e-mails have been faked. The e-mails could very well be real.... It is the ISSUES with the e-mails that are debunked, because THERE IS NO ISSUES!
People claim data was hidden, but the data is found on the internet.
People claim they "hid the decline" but they really didn't hide anything.
It's all a big misconception that everyone and their mother is jumping on because it supports their belief system.
You all are being fooled by incorrect interpretations.
reply posted on 4-12-2009 @ 04:18 PM by lordtyp0
Originally posted by mnemeth1
What a bunch of agitprop.
Dude.
Read this.
Software developer explains hacked climate model source code
The emails are a joke compared to the code.
This is a total fraud.
Negative, the code is only indicative of intentional changes which are described via the organizations 1989 paper.
The changes are there to make the temperature readings fall in line due to averaging issues. The Thermostats are in a wide array of places: From ships of various heights to floaters, to land places.
The modifcations are in there to make the temperature averages fall in line with tree ring readings and to account for situational modifiers.
The paper was available here however they appear to have it down due to traffic atm. I will keep an eye on it and paste the paper when it becomes accessible again.
The interpretations of the code simply state "These are artificial modifications" some of the lines even state that directly. So, instead of looking at that and seeing "artificial" how about doing 10 minutes of searching to find WHY it was there. That paper clearly defined it.
reply posted on 4-12-2009 @ 04:19 PM by ALLis0NE
reply to post by lordtyp0
THANK YOU for understanding something that everyone else is being fooled by!
You are the only one who replied so far that understands what they are talking about. Thanks.
THANK YOU for understanding something that everyone else is being fooled by!
You are the only one who replied so far that understands what they are talking about. Thanks.
reply posted on 4-12-2009 @ 04:21 PM by lordtyp0
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by ALLis0NE
Look the thread title says "Hacked E-mails Debunked". The e-mails are impossible to debunk because they are true. What you are attempting in your thread title is mind games. You trying to equate that the e-mails are not true, when in fact they are.
The e-mails show them stacking the peer-review process, blackballing journals that publish "skeptical" papers, it shows them colluding to delete data, etc. Not to mention the most damaging thing to come out after these e-mails that add validity the actual context of the e-mails was when the CRU came out and said they deleted the raw-data and the only data that remains is "value-added" data.
Okay beyond all that, you can sit here and say the e-mails were "misinterpreted" all you want, but that does nothing to explain why the computer code is full of errors, and hard-coded adjustments, that alter that data to arrive at the pre-conceived conclusion that Man-Made Global Warming is real. I've read most of the e-mails for myself, and I have also looked over the code myself.
The code is FRAUDULENT there is no way around that. You can say whatever you want about the e-mails, but the fact of the matter is the computer code gives context to the e-mails and from the code we can conclude that the "trick" to "hide the decline" was to get rid of the inconvenient drop in temperature that didn't match their pre-conceived conclusion that Man is responsible for the earth warming.
The fact is what has been conducted is not "science" it is fraudulent activity in order to come to a pre-conceived conclusion that Man is Responsible for the earth Warming. That is the facts. The computer code PROVES it.
It is obvious you do not understand the code or the situation. The code simply shows modifications. It does not address the reasons for the modification. That is what you are projecting onto it. I will track the document I was reading a few days ago, from the think tanks site. It was from 1989, it detailed the need of the modifications, which are not sinister.
reply posted on 4-12-2009 @ 04:22 PM by ALLis0NE
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
You don't know what you are talking about either.
The ISSUES with the e-mails have been debunked. It doesn't matter if the e-mails are real or fake, the issues regarding the e-mails have been debunked meaning there is no issues.
The e-mails are just being twisted around into something they are NOT. That is what is debunked, the twisting, and the misinterpretation.
You don't know what you are talking about either.
The ISSUES with the e-mails have been debunked. It doesn't matter if the e-mails are real or fake, the issues regarding the e-mails have been debunked meaning there is no issues.
The e-mails are just being twisted around into something they are NOT. That is what is debunked, the twisting, and the misinterpretation.
Volcano in Iceland Erupting Alongside The Aurora Borealis (pics)
Posted 7 days ago with 121 member flags
Posted 7 days ago with 121 member flags
West Coast USA: Pay Attention, Cascadia May Be Ready to Rupture
Posted 9 days ago with 87 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 87 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Greece in turmoil as new round of austerity passed by lawmakers!!
Political Issues, Posted 8 minutes ago
Political Issues, Posted 8 minutes ago
Now the press-titutes have been turned on by the authorities...
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 48 minutes ago
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 48 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Brainwashed Cops Shoot Unarmed Woman Motorist To Death For Rolling Up Her Car Window
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 12 hours ago, 55 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 12 hours ago, 55 flags
Thomas Jefferson, A man of the past who may have seen the future
US Political Madness, Posted 17 hours ago, 29 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 17 hours ago, 29 flags
***Programming The Nation FULL Video- Limited Time Only!!***
Education and Media, Posted 11 hours ago, 23 flags
Education and Media, Posted 11 hours ago, 23 flags
Cop allegedly pulled gun on pregnant woman over too many grocery items in checkout
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 19 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 19 flags
Scientists Warn Supervolcano Will Destroy U.S Much Sooner Than You Think
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 16 flags
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 16 flags
Anonymous Take Down Greece Government and Police Websites
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 13 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 13 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Brainwashed Cops Shoot Unarmed Woman Motorist To Death For Rolling Up Her Car Window
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 12 hours ago, 121 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 12 hours ago, 121 replies
U.S. Navy: Iran prepares suicide bomb boats in Gulf
Middle East Issues, Posted 13 hours ago, 100 replies
Middle East Issues, Posted 13 hours ago, 100 replies
Hollow Earth Theory Using Cold Fusion as evidence of the possiblity.
General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 78 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 78 replies
Scientists Warn Supervolcano Will Destroy U.S Much Sooner Than You Think
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 62 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 15 hours ago, 62 replies
Cop allegedly pulled gun on pregnant woman over too many grocery items in checkout
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 51 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 51 replies
Anonymous Take Down Greece Government and Police Websites
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 47 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 47 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.351 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.351 seconds
