Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Widewing]

Claimed to be a hacker, Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia emails have been released to the public. Many IT experts consulted don't believe that this is the work of a hacker, but rather an insider whistle blower.

Fascinating how they manipulate data to support their case. More fascinating is that they openly admit it in the emails.. Priceless exposure of evil science and a total lack of honesty. Intimidation and threats are part and parcel of the methods described in the emails. Amazing stuff.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657


My regards,

Widewing

[Shuffler]

Heard about it this morn.. will be checking it out more at lunch.

[Anaxogoras]

Fraud, dry-labbing, and smoothing data points all have a long history in science.  But to say that this discredits the danger of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere does not follow.

edited

[Sabre]

Fraud, dry-labbing, and smoothing data points all have a long history in science.  But to say that this discredits the danger of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere is laughable.

It does however, cast reasonable doubt on the degree and immediacy of that danger, and demands a renewing of reasonable debate, don't you think?  Science maybe about facts, but scientists are human and so are people with agendas.  I've heard enough reasoned arguments against man-made GW to at least question the conclusions of those who support that theory.

[LYNX]

From the conspiracy site  Disclose.TV

http://www.disclose.tv/frameset.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fjamesdelingpole%2F100017451%2Fclimategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science%2F

[Anaxogoras]

There's always room to look at the data and debate its meaning.  The internal debate among these scientists is why they fudged their results; they didn't want it to appear that they were not a united front for fear that people wouldn't take the issue seriously.

Sorry you quoted me above, I tried to get rid of the appeal to ridicule but was too late.

---------------

For my part, I don't care whether or not man-made global warming is a 99% certainty or a 10% probability.  The cost of doing nothing and then finding out we're wrong might be catastrophic.  The cost of being right, taking action, and then finding out that the danger was overstated would be inconvenient.

[Strip]

I agree Sabre, too much has been said, seen and done not to step back and have people with unbiased opinions look into this matter.

Strip

[Shuffler]

For my part, I don't care whether or not man-made global warming is a 99% certainty or a 10% probability.  The cost of doing nothing and then finding out we're wrong might be catastrophic.  The cost of being right, taking action, and then finding out that the danger was overstated would be inconvenient.

Do you carry 4 spares in your car? Waterpump.... hoses, torque converter???

Seems a lot of dinos, plants and animals were once wiped out from a catastrophe. The earth recovered nicely I thought. I see this crock as another way for someone to milk those with money to babysit those without.

[DREDger]

For my part, I don't care whether or not man-made global warming is a 99% certainty or a 10% probability.  The cost of doing nothing and then finding out we're wrong might be catastrophic.  The cost of being right, taking action, and then finding out that the danger was overstated would be inconvenient.

That's easy for you to say, since you're probably not worried where you next meal is coming from, or if malaria is going to kill you.  The resources that global warming alarmists want spent on reducing cabon emmissions will cut into getting food to third world countries that need it, or efforts to reduce malaria, or supply of clean water to many of these needy people across the globe. 

[Westy]

"The resources that global warming alarmists want spent on reducing cabon emmissions wil
cut into getting food to third world countries that need it, or efforts to reduce malaria, or
supply of clean water to many of these needy people across the globe. "


Phew.  For a moment I got worried they would find the money to feed the hungry, cure the
sick and clean the environment by cutting spending on military boondoggles, reducing the
poor oil corporations subsidies or taking back some of the bank and automaker golden
parachut__, er, bail outs!
 

Think we'll have a rubber-tire bonfire party this weekend since it's all been so much b.s!

Light em if you got em!

[Viperius]

Some of those emails are wow just wow, especially the 5 page pdf flyer on how to condition the public in order to believe the faked science   most of it is research data that cant be deciphered without the programm they used tho  

Here a sneak peak

Chapter 2 has 10 diagrams showing these data, but only one thoroughly confusing diagram (Figure 2.12) for other methods of global temperature measurement.  The fact that satellite and weather balloon measurements in the lower troposphere do not show a warming for the past 21 years suggests strongly that the surface data are influenced by proximity to human habitation, rather than by greenhouse warming. There is insufficient attention paid to the evidence that this is so, which is

A quadrupling of human population and increases in  human prosperity in the last century have led to a great increase in buildings, fuel consumption and vehicles in the vicinity of weather stations.
Weather stations do not take any precautions against these influences
Many remote weather stations do not show a warming
Much recent warming has been from a rise in the minimum temperature rather than the maximum
Recent warming took place mainly in cold climates, in winter, and at night
Two thirds of the weather stations operating in 1975, mainly rural, have been closed down
Many scientific studies have identified “urbanization” effects, but these have been underestimated, because “rural” stations are assumed to be free of such effects.
Vegetation growing around stations usually increases,  but is rarely reduced.
Airports have made a transition from  “rural” to “heat island”
Surface temperature compilations make inadequate corrections for urban effects

A human influence on climate  from these effects is highly likely. An influence from emissions of greenhouse gases is yet to be established.

The treatment of scenarios is confusing. There is only one  reference (in Chapter 13) to a document describing the SRES set of IPCC scenarios  and incomplete information is spread around several Chapters. There is a whole Chapter 13 on “Scenario Development” which does  mention the IPCC  SRES scenario as authored by Nakicenovic, and “under review” but gives no further details. . Several Chapters give model results from the obsolete IS92a scenario, thereby “selecting” it, in defiance of the IPCC claim that they do not favour one scenario over another. There is evidence in Chapter 4

You can go back to sleep now, your government is in control

[Sabre]

For my part, I don't care whether or not man-made global warming is a 99% certainty or a 10% probability.  The cost of doing nothing and then finding out we're wrong might be catastrophic.  The cost of being right, taking action, and then finding out that the danger was overstated would be inconvenient.

The problem is, the cost of being wrong could be catastrophic as well.  Your logic here is divorced from reasonable cost-risk analysis.  The negative impacts to emerging economies of CO2 reduction laws and treatise, as well as to developed nations, is already being felt, and have proven largely ineffective.  The percent certainty is important in determining if it is more cost effective to attempt to reduce CO2 (and hopefully but not certainly) slowing warming, take other proposed measures to counter-act warming, or instead to mitigate it's effects.  What if the science dictates that CO2 has done all the warming it can do (a claim I've heard)?  The forcing function of CO2 are, I've read, an exponential decay; i.e. as the concentration goes up, the impact per unit of increase goes down in an exponential decay pattern.  Could that not explain why GW has essentially halted for the last decaded, even though CO2 concentration has been rising still?  What I'm saying is, the nature of the malady must be understood, if we're going to have a cure (or even need a cure) that does not do more harm than the malady.  Having honesty from the scientific community is essential, and these emails intimate that we're not getting it.

[DREDger]

Global warming, or 'climate change' as the parliance du jur in the face of contrary data, is not an anthropogenic phenomenon.

What is unfortunate is true environmental stewardship has been lost to the shrill absolutism in the environmental movement that places carbon at the very top of the agenda.

Many have become so emotionally invested in this carbon issue that they cannot be reasoned with.  Pointing to contrary evidence is only to become labelled as a 'denier'

Take for example biofuels.  The evidence is indesputable that creating biofuels actally creates more of a carbon footprint than using fossil fuels, and increases food prices of to boot.  Yet this is still happening, and heavily subsidized.

What is more is countries like China and India are the leading emmitters of carbon and have absolutely no intention of hamstringing their economies with carbon reduction.  Al Gore would have you believe the  US needs to do just that, so that we can create a 'moral authority'.  The naivete is staggering.

Millions across the world die from hunger, disease, lack of clean water, etc.  Imagine if the global warming movement dedicated it's resources to those issues.

[Strip]

But....but....but that would just make to much sense!

Strip

[john9001]

if your computer model does not give you the results you wanted, change your computer model.