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.

 

Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

page: 13
29
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by C-JEAN

Should be easy for those hard to understand?

Mt. Kilimanjaro Ice Cap rapidly retreats, 85% of 1912's ice cover vanished. . .
www.worldculturepictorial.com...
COMMON SENSE here, no need of scientific numbers ! Photos do it !



the loss of ice on Mt. Kilimanjaro is the result of reduced precipitation in conjunction with normal sublimation of ice (directly from solid to gas). See.

www.heartland.org...



he alpine glacier atop East Africa’s Mt. Kilimanjaro, for example, is shrinking, yet scientific measurements show the mountain has been cooling for decades, and the temperature virtually never rises above freezing.


and www.ff.org... (.pdf)


citing such local examples without taking into account any circumstances is by default wrong and it's not just sloppy, but intentionally misleading. likewise, the Antarctic continent by and large experiences sub zero temperatures only and glaciers can only melt aat the periphery, when in contact with the sea, but i'm digressing.

it seems whenever we dig deeper in the climate scare material, the stink is hardly bearable, maybe that's what you get for turning over a pile of ****, who knows.


PS: common sense is not your friend, i think


=============


AllisONE
... I knew the majority of ATS would hate me and this thread with a passion. I knew that because sheep are predictable.



really? the old, tired accusation of anger? everything wears off, progressives (you'll certainly classify=) should be the best to know, obviously... at any rate, YOU were the one who'd rather see your opponents 'removed', gotta love euphemisms, can't look the truth in the eye, can you? YOU and your cohorts went ad hominem immediately and i love how the sanity and intellectual capacity of those who you'd rather see 'removed' are apparently the main topics now instead of climategate.

your 'smarts' seem to primarily consist of bald faced lying combined with group-thinking for purposes of internal control, self-censorship, PR and the unconditional persecution of dissenters or heretics by means of 'consenus' mob-style attacks. the fortunate fact that you haven't gained enough of a foothold to have us silenced and locked up in psychiatric institutions (Soviets and Nazis appreciated this opportunity as well, so you're in 'good' company) shouldn't detract from the intentions you have voiced so far and what you in all likelyhood still have in store for us, should the opportunity arise.

imho, i can do very well without the 'rest of the iceberg' that must be part of your conscience. After all, if you believe that the 'removal' of people is something you could openly talk about on a messageboard, in your own thread to boot, for purposes of 'winning a debate', then i cannot and will not pretend for one second, that i know what goes on within the likes of you.

[edit on 2009.12.6 by Long Lance]




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Programmer explains Climate Software

The implications of the story behind the so-called ClimateGate scandal are more than just e-mails concealing data, but an incompetence analyzing the data by way of faulty computer code.

John Graham-Cumming, a British programmer explains how the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had problems with its computer programming analyzing climate change data, with billion, if not even trillions of dollars, on the line.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted 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]

Sorry ALLisONE but you are on to a loser here on ATS. The skeptics are not interested in the truth of scientific study especially since most are expert climatologists who only need to look out of the window from their armchair.

Here's a prediction: the UN IPCC will investigate the claims about the emails and conclude(correctly given the content) that there is no distortion of data, this will then be labelled a "cover up" by the skeptics.

After all ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that ANYONE disagrees with can be labelled a cover up.........it saves having to think and admit they are wrong.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
More downplaying, more subterfuge, more political garbage, this time out of the UK and of course we have the UN saying the leaked emails are bad. The disciples of the church of AGW just won't stop trying to diffuse the damage that has been done even when one of their cardinals make statements, but they continue to use the MSM to further their cause.

Huge climategate subterfuge by British media today!

UN climate chief: Hacked e-mails are damaging

And you're right MALCR, they have already hired one of their own to lead the investigation. It's sort of like a criminal charged with murder doing the investigation for the police of his crime. But these people are no strangers to conflict of interest. I was involved as a whistle-blower in a $150 million tax and public funds fraud in the 90's that was swept under the rug, because the perps in government and the universities investigated themselves, so I am no stranger to this kind of behavior as well.

Cheers - Dave

[edit on 12/6.2009 by bobs_uruncle]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Seems to me that the majority of supporters of "man made" effects here on ATS didn't read the policy change.
After review, the theory didn't pan out, so "global warming" is hereafter only to be referred to as "global climate change". Those who continue to use the wrong lexicon are, therefore, proposing a different theory not supported by the IPCC any longer.
As someone who knows a bit about programming, the REM statements in the code provided in the UEA leaked files are the most obvious evidence of manipulation to reach a certain conclusion-----openly and in their own words.

Leaving out the medieval warm period data while retaining the "little ice age" data because it makes the numbers work better, as well as the refusal to consider solar forcing-----the largest contributor to global temperature changes by orders of magnitude--is damning evidence of manipulation to reach a desired conclusion.

It seems to me that honest science should be open, and the data should be available for all to see. That in this topic the data is withheld and even refused to be provided by FOIA legal requests is more than a bit onerous and detrimental to the claims of the proponents.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
You sure went to alot of trouble here in an attempt to change some minds, what you fail to realize is people have minds of their own and are fully capable of parsing the BS out of controversy on subjects like this. In my mind your efforts here have failed you miserably, all BS.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
Sorry ALLisONE but you are on to a loser here on ATS. The skeptics are not interested in the truth of scientific study especially since most are expert climatologists who only need to look out of the window from their armchair.


True.

But just a word or twenty of advice - they are not sceptics, the majority of scientists are sceptics. These people are best labelled pseudosceptics/anti-science ideologues/deniers.

Don't let them frame themselves in such a way.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Well,... It certainly will be interesting to see what the real leaders of this world will decide in a few days regardless of what you all have opinions on.


[edit on 6-12-2009 by Lil Drummerboy]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The HUGE red flag for me was the way the LWLs react when someone
does not agree with their doomsday scenarios. They label them "deniers"
and declare that the debate is OVER!
Their so called "solution" is an even larger red flag.
They basically want to upset the entire world economy to make
just a tiny difference.
The only people in denial right now are the MSM networks.
ClimateGate??? What's that?
Another example of cherry picking the news to fit their political agenda.



Thank God for Fox News !


[edit on 7-12-2009 by Eurisko2012]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Hacked Emails debunked? This too can be added to the long list of issues that have been thoroughly debunked.

Here's some of the other outrageous claims that have recently been thoroughly debunked by well trusted sources...

- 9/11 was an inside job.
- Aliens have visited earth in the past.
- Swine flu vaccine is unsafe.
- Reichstag fire was a false flag event.
- Dr Kelly was murdered.
- O.J.Simpson has been found guilty of a criminal charge.
- George W Bush was stupid and a drunk.
- The banks are uncaring and bleeding the West white.
- There is no Santa Claus, it's all a put-up job.
- Every Pope in the last 2000 years has actually been a Catholic.
- Canada lies to the north of the USA.
- People enjoy eating chocolate cake.
- The capital of California is really Sacramento.
- Three is the square root of 9.

Yes folks, the above is all just a bunch of conspiracy nonsense and has all been thoroughly debunked.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 





Yet scientists associated with these emails are quitting their jobs over this scandal, rather than sticking around to fight the good fight.


Who? Provide a link. I haven't heard of anyone quitting their jobs.

And I don't think you have either.

But anything is possible, I suppose, so please provide a link to a verifiable source for your assertion.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 





Au contraire... The data in question has now been thrown out by the hysterical climate-change crusaders, rather than keeping it, explaining it and defending it.


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

No data has been thrown out. NONE

MOST data is freely available on the Internet along with the code to process it.

SOME data has been withheld from 'unauthorized non-research' requesters due to contractual obligations between CRU and the data owners like the various national meteorological services. And CRU is trying to get the data owners to allow them to release that data as well. If you want to help make this happen contact your national meteorological service and ask them to allow CRU to release the data if they haven't already.

NO DATA HAS BEEN LOST. This issue, raised by those of you who are misreading the stolen emails has not only been debunked, it is demonstratively false.

Continuing to propagate this fraudulent interpretation is not worthy of a community dedicated to the concept of 'Denying Ignorance'.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





That's fraud buddy.
The paper recommended the deletion of data BECAUSE THE DATA INVALIDATES THE USE OF TREE RINGS AS PROXIES


No that is data collection uncertainty. The researchers are convinced there is something wrong with their data, and they are openly stating that it is unsafe until the anomaly is explained.

The researchers are pointing out that the tree rings reflect the observed data very closely until 1960, but then something happened to the trees that they sampled (at a specific location in Alaska) and they cannot explain it. They still cannot explain that particular problem completely satisfactorily, (local drought?, beaver dam burst?, avalanche? logging operation on the other side of the river?) but we now have many different sample series from many different places in the world, and other proxy readings like glacier lengths, boreholes, stalagmites, ice cores, and lake sediments. All of which tell the same story.

If you are driving down the road at a steady speed, and notice that counting the number of telephone poles you pass corresponds to your speedometer rather closely you might decide that telephone pole counting is a good proxy for direct speed measurement. If you cross state lines and notice that the telephone poles don't correspond as well you would probably decide that using telephone poles in that state is unsafe as a proxy for speed.

In this case you might not care to find out why the telephone poles are randomly spaced in one state and consistent in another, but the point is that it works sometimes and not others. Within certain boundaries it is a good proxy, a "trick" to calculate your average speed when you are in the first state, but not the other.

That's all the tree-ring researcher are doing. They are saying that the tree rings are a useful proxy for temperatures, matching the instrument readings until 1960 when the trees sampled in this set no longer match the instrument readings.

Simple observation and simple caveat to not use data untrustworthy data. Complete transparency at every step. The complete opposite of fraud.

The effect of the entire affair was one line on one graph on one report from 10 years ago didn't go to the edge of the graph. It has had no impact on science or decision making since then.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





They were doing it to hide the MASSIVE DIVERGENCE PROBLEM THAT INVALIDATES THE USE OF TREE RING DATA AS A PROXY.


Dude, you don't need to scream.

The divergence problem invalidates only that one series of tree rings from a few trees in Alaska that made up the original dataset for use beyond 1960.

It does not invalidate other tree ring series from Asia and Europe.

There are at least a half dozen other proxies anyway. And we don't need proxies for 'recent' temperatures anyway. And even if all tree-ring data were consistent in its story after 1960, it would only invalidate the usefullness of tree-rings as proxy after 1960.

It doesn't mean that the instrument data is incorrect, only that something happened around 1960 that caused trees to stop being a useful proxy. Heck, maybe that was when the atmospheric CO2 crossed the threshold that changed growth patterns in the trees making it look like what a cooler year used to look like. Maybe it changed from being a temperature proxy to a CO2 proxy.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 





Let's clear up another misconception, then, while we're at it... Land-based vegetation is not the primary CO2 "scrubber" on planet Earth. The Earth's oceans — covering over 70% of the planet's surface in a life-bearing medium that supports uncounted billions of tons of carbon-absorbing plant life in a water column 2 miles deep on average — is the primary "scrubber" of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. We could wipe out the entire Amazonian rain forest tomorrow without significantly impacting the Earth's capacity for absorbing and storing atmospheric CO2. That's the oceans' job. Beyond that, in the USA, we have actually replenished more forested lands than originally existed on this continent at the time of its discovery by western explorers in the 15th century. That's right, the North American continent now has more forested lands than it did 500 years ago. So much for the "mass deforestation" theory.


Wrong.

There is clear evidence that the ocean is slowing down its uptake of CO2.

And even if it isn't, the pH has already been lowered enough to start killing coral reefs. For example calcification on The Great Barrier Reef is at a 400 year low due to acidification and warming.

Coral reefs are major breeding grounds and 'supermarkets' for seafood species life cycles depended on by upwards of 3 billion people around the Pacific Rim. Kill the reefs, kill the fish, kill the people.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





I KNOW THE TREE RINGS SHOW THINGS THAT WERE NOT BACKED UP BY THE LOCAL THERMOMETERS - THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!


Please stop yelling. We hear you.

That is not the point. The point is why did it change in 1960. Until that question can be answered, that data is unsafe after 1960. It is not needed as proxy anyway, because we have instrumented data for that period.

What is so difficult for you to understand?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 





How do the scientist differentiate the difference between Man-made CO2 and naturally occurring CO2?


Please review this article. All will be revealed.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 





Originally posted by TheRedneck The problem [with Wikipedia] is it is user-generated, and thus anyone with an agenda can change it. So you have to be careful when using it. I agree on this point wholeheartedly — which is why I don't use Wikipedia.


Well it isn't quite that simple.

Certain topics and categories have 'fixed authors' (or groups of authors) and random updates cannot occur. Studies (for which I have no links, so this is just hearsay) have shown that Wikipaedia is more accurate and corrected faster than the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica.

There is still a lot of scope for mischief, of course, and it is 'just' an encyclopedia, not a research paper. Even a high school paper would be scored low if it relied on an encyclopedia.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia is an excellent source of information not otherwise accessible to many people. It is silly to ignore it just 'on principle'.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 






Evangelical Scientists Speak Out on MMGW Hoax

...

There you go. Tit-for-tat, you can take the data and generate whatever finding you want. POINT IS, the data is too nebulous and can be interpreted any way someone wants.


Weren't you just complaining about using sources with an identified bias?

Correct me if I am wrong and it was 'the other guy'.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





Ask and ye shall receive. Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie. I started this thread on Dec. 1. So far it has 226 flags and I received 222 stars on the OP.


Boasting is unseemly.

Your model has been shown to have too many flaws to be useful. It just doesn't reflect reality.

That 226 people have applauded your effort doesn't mean it is accurate. Even I gave you a star. It is cool that you tried to work out the numbers, but they are just not correct.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join