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.

 

Why theres no sign of a climate conspiricy in hacked emails

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Have we even verified that the e-mails are real?

Rush Limbaugh said he thinks they're real because they are too "elaborate" to be a hoax.

Just because the e-mails are elaborate doesn't mean they're not fake. In fact, if someone wanted to fake these e-mails, they would definitely make them as elaborate as possible.

For the record, have we verified for sure that the e-mails are real? I'm just asking.




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
As pointed out by selective quotes from IgnoranceIsntBlisss post, can I just add that the "higher" you go in the circles of society (more distinguished, more educated, more elite) the more subtle is the conspiracy. When you read texts exchanged between thieves who robbed the corner shop, you are likely to see some clear evidence of conspiracy. But as you go higher up, the language changes. The whole crime appears very "clean" and noble.

But all this doesn't matter; the scandal will be cleaned up. It never got out on MSM in Europe in a big way. What's important is that there are two big groups of qualified scientists on each side of the debate - so, no consensus.

Why tax carbon? Why not toxic waste? Why not tax energy saving bulbs for their mercury content? Why not plastics for being toxic and not biodegradable? Why not enforce glass containers and proper recycling mechanisms collected from the plastic tax? Why not tax unhealthy foods (I mean really unhealthy foods)? Why not tax weapons? Even more tax on weapons?

Because those taxes hurt rich and powerful, and carbon tax hurts ordinary people, so no pain is felt by politicians. Carbon tax is a stress relief doll where outraged people can misplace their anger and punish it, instead of real criminals.



Originally posted by rizla
Bonkers, the lot of you. How can pumping all this crap into the air NOT have an effect?

Oh, it has an effect, but a different one



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by mushibrain
 


mushibrain and thoughtful:

DO YOU BOTH WORK FOR EXXON -MOBIL? I know you do, did, or are closely affiliated because you are speaking for them not us.

The carbon tax will not affect ordinary workers...you people protecting big polluters say "the companies will take a hit and pass it on to their consumer" Are you under the DELUDED impression if no carbon tax bill is passed these companies are going to keep their prices low for you?
FORGET ABOUT IT!

They will cut employees and raise prices and cheapen the product so they can make every red cent they can get away with.
Ever notice when you purchase something and after a year or so you need to replace it...you find they began to build them cheaper and to cut corners and your old broken item is constructed better than the NEW ONE?
This is what happens. They just keep raking in the money everywhere they can get it and the consumer takes it up the butt.

Quit speaking for EXXON-MOBIL, UNLESS YOU WORK FOR THEM. THEN I SUPPOSE THEY ARE WATCHING YOU SO YOU HAVE TO POST THIS CRAP.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


What kind of answer is that? The guy who leaked the emails works for climate change science, so what? And you probably invested in green stocks. Who cares? Look at the facts. And the only fact worth mentioning is that scientists who spent much more time on this then you and me cannot agree. Other "evidence" is not a fact but a theory.

Here is an interesting article about nations in debt and going more in debt, connected to the global warming movement:
Copenhage n climate change conference: Borrow to the hilt to stop global warming, says Lord Stern

It seems to me that the desire to get nations in debt and the desire to promote anthropogenic global warming theory are part of the same machine. Now, who wants nations to be in debt?

Also, did you read what I wrote? Put a tax on or ban altogether things that are really bad for us, so that alternatives can be developed. If you're going to starve the people and drive nations into debt at least do so by fighting real threats.


[edit on 6-12-2009 by mushibrain]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mushibrain
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


Also, did you read what I wrote? Put a tax on or ban altogether things that are really bad for us, so that alternatives can be developed. If you're going to starve the people and drive nations into debt at least do so by fighting real threats.




We can't even get a tax on soda and junk food. If you try to limit things that are "bad" for people other people cry it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We can't win. In fact the whole system is designed so we (the average Joe) can't possibly get ahead. We're deliberately kept SICK (look at health care) and STUPID (look at education) so we are ill prepared to fight back.



[edit on 6-12-2009 by rusethorcain]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   


Why theres no sign of a climate conspiricy in hacked emails


Easy.

The leaked weather data has just enough information to distract people .

Distract against what you ask?

It really distracts against the health care bill for one thing.

It also distracts away from afghanistan Iraq and whatever else is cooking up.

This info on the weather was not leaked by who you think. It is a Operation by an agency to give everyone SOMETHING ELSE to focus on.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm getting the impression that "New Scientist" is not really a credible publication.

That's a pretty biased article trying to convince readers using anecdotal evidence that the empirical evidence is there, when in fact it does not seem to exist at all.


Well put.

That is exactly the impression I got also.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 





... (not to mention that they can't because a lot of it has been deleted),...


NO data has been deleted. It defeats your purpose to parrot such stupidly false assertions.

The only data which has not been released to the public, and in fact made freely available to anyone interested via the internet, is that which is covered by non-disclosure agreements by the agencies that collected the data in the first place, usually because they think they can make money off of it. Like the United States Government. Or the French Government. Or the Russian (and previously the Soviet Government). Or whoever.

The CRU has never liked this situation either. If this privacy invasion and data theft has done anything, it has maybe lit a fire under the various National Meteorlogical Services to open source their data. CRU has already announced they are trying to effect this.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Some of the quotes you have cherry picked are discussing the problem with one set of tree-ring readings that do not match other tree-ring readings. The researchers that found the data have said since 1997 that their data should not be used after 1960 because they do not trust it and cannot explain the discrepancy.

They have been working on explaining the 'divergence' since 1998, and so far can only respond that something happened in the Alaskan forest after 1960 that disturbed the otherwise consistent proxy temperature signature in the trees they sampled.

Maybe a beaver dam broke and flooded the trees. Maybe there was a local drought. Or whatever. But there are other tree-ring series from other locales in Asia and Europe that do not diverge. (I think there may be a series in Japan that diverges too, but in a different way IIRC).

So these emails are discussing, 10 years ago remember, whether the data is worth using, and if not, can the resultant 'hole' be covered by other data. The discussion was over the preparation of exactly 1 diagram that has had no effect on the science or the politics ever since - until now when stolen email conversations are dragged out.

Other quotes are discussing a couple of papers that should not have been published. They were bad science and six of the editors, including the newly appointed chief editor, resigned when the publisher overrode the editorial opinion and published it anyway.

Despite the hyperbole of some of the reviewers in the stolen emails, the papers were included in the IPCC report. The papers are still, to this day, considered bad science and not worthy of publication.

But I really know that because I recognize them from the other many sites that they have come up on and been discussed ad nauseaum. Taking one line quotes from hundreds of stolen email notes provides none of the context required to determine what they are talking about, what the previous posts in the thread was about, or what the response was in the next post. It is just ludicrous to imagine that this stuff has any meaning in any discussion in the present.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 





You obviously don't understand how science works.

All it takes is one experiment to prove a theory wrong. It doesn't matter how "big" the theory is. Take for instance the search for the Higgs Boson. If they don't find the Higgs then everything we know about particle psychics is wrong.


No. All it means is that we haven't found the Higgs Boson. It is a hard sucker to find. Maybe we haven't designed the experiment properly or we need a bigger particle accelerator.

There are alternate hypotheses to Higgs, that may in the end prove more useful if the Higgs Boson remains ellusive, and they do not break 'everything we know about particle psychics' (or physics either for that matter). They just present an alternate way of arriving at the same conclusion.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by superdebz

Why theres no sign of a climate conspiricy in hacked emails


www.newscientist.com

The leaking of emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, has led to a media and political storm. The affair is being portrayed as a scandal that undermines the science behind climate change. It is no such thing, and here's why.

We can be 100 per cent sure the world is getting warmer

Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and
(visit the link for the full news article)



Yes, when the world is getting cooler over a 20 year period that means its getting warmer.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



No data deleted




dated APRIL 2009 - request for data denied as it had been deleted


Link

and

more data deletion

Link



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   


Thanks - thats all folks.

Hmm - more
www.abc.net.au...

[edit on 7-12-2009 by audas]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ForAiur
Have we even verified that the e-mails are real?

Rush Limbaugh said he thinks they're real because they are too "elaborate" to be a hoax.

Just because the e-mails are elaborate doesn't mean they're not fake. In fact, if someone wanted to fake these e-mails, they would definitely make them as elaborate as possible.

For the record, have we verified for sure that the e-mails are real? I'm just asking.


Yes, the source of the emails confirmed their security was breached. I don't have a link to that but with some googling you should be able to find the article(s).



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
This post is especially important now that it looks like the RUSSIAN MOB was behind the hack in the first place.

Just another case of big business using its criminal connections to convince suckers that government interference in their "altruistic raping of society" is not only necessary but preferable to democracy.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Would like to add the following.

I find amusing that with a simple act of hacking how many have fallen for a perfect conspiracy, hook, line and sinker. Sure the motives seem right and just for hacking the emails, but what really is behind the motive and final result of such an act ?

Who was responsible for giving the green light ? me wonders...

Do you think they were not aware of the impact and financial gain of such an act. Sure they were

So i guess about know i should more less point how easy it is to change and alter anyones perception of right or wrong. Suddenly we justified the act of unlawful entry into a private network. So i assume i can unleash my army and begin systematically attacking private networks in order to find damaging information regardless of what occupation he or she is engaged in.

I happened to read the transcript of Mr.Jones radio broadcast praising the hacker's for allowing such an information breach regardless of if it was legal or not. I guess he believes that those individuals are on his side, or should i say he assumes so. I would tread with extreme caution Mr. Jones on who you consider to be your friends and who is fighting what cause for what reason. Such an irresponsible and stupid approach in trying to vacuum people who have a far higher intellect with an agenda which you could not possible understand as it falls into the realm of science fiction according to your perception of reality.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
How do you explain the worldwide melting of the glaciers if not for "Global Warming' ?

www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org...

physicsworld.com...

www.rfa.org...



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


From your first link (text bolded to show the interesting part)


Not only were the post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction not shown in the IPCC 2001 report – an artifice that Gavin describes as being "hidden in plain sight", they were deleted from the archived version of the reconstruction at NOAA here (note: the earlier Briffa 2000 data here does contain a related series through to 1994.)


Steve McIntyre apparently can't lie straight in bed. His title says the data is deleted, then his text says the data is not deleted.

Note that Briffa is the original researcher and has all the data. No data has been deleted. The post 1960 values are not used in the literature because Briffa, the original researcher told everyone that he didn't trust that data and they shouldn't use it. No data has been deleted.

Your second link is identical to your first link.

Isn't it obvious why scientists have no respect for McIntyre? He is a statistician, and theoretically could provide useful input on the data analysis, but he just keeps firing FOI requests to the CRU for data which he knows they are contractually unable to release, and he doesn't even want to use the data.

He just wants to be a PITA.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by superdebz
 


We have MILLIONS of scientists around the world saying this? I didn't know there were a million scientists on this planet let alone supporting this. I know for a fact that it's a pretty even divide. Meaning that MILLIONS don't support it. Just thousands. With THOUSANDS of others against the theory with HARD EVIDENCE of their own.

You see, when you make a statement like that it almost makes me think that you may be a young teenager simply trying to show how passionate you are about this subject.

Hey, I understand being passionate over this. I also can see that you may believe that people who don't buy into global warming CAUSED BY MAN simply don't give a crap about the planet or the other life forms on it. That's simply not true. Because I don't swallow everything that is being force fed us by these paid scientists doesn't mean that I want to pollute and destroy.

Also, if our planet is getting warmer then why do the actual figures show otherwise? Over the past decade we have seen a cooling trend. But then again, that's data from the OTHER side. Maybe they're being paid too to come up with fixed figures. Maybe it's all just a bunch of political BS.

Oh! Now that makes sense! Politics and science don't mix which is why we are seeing such a big fat mess of this whole thing right now.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 



Steve McIntyre apparently can't lie straight in bed. His title says the data is deleted, then his text says the data is not deleted.

Note that Briffa is the original researcher and has all the data. No data has been deleted. The post 1960 values are not used in the literature because Briffa, the original researcher told everyone that he didn't trust that data and they shouldn't use it. No data has been deleted.




NO , what it shows , quite clearly is that in 1 report the data was intact - in the newer report the data had vanished.

or are you trying to twist the words to suit your own needs?


as for the second link - thats a totally different set of data and of sidelined and ignored FOI requests - oh wait , the same sort of information request that the released emails directly said to ignore and delete the data for.


is the pay good mr conintelpro?




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join