Author Topic: Climategate  (Read 4782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2010, 06:37:44 PM »
did you read the bbc news interview?  The foxnews link is derivative of the interview (although does include a link from CATO), so not sure why you included it.

I'm thinking you never made it much past the headlines.
@bentren

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2010, 06:40:32 PM »
did you read the bbc news interview?  The foxnews link is derivative of the interview (although does include a link from CATO), so not sure why you included it.

I'm thinking you never made it much past the headlines.


I read enough to see that this dude said the earth was warmer in the middle ages than it is now and there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years, and even has cooled (no significantly) in the last 8 years.

Are you just discrediting this? I mean this plus climategate should be enough to convince even the most dedicated warmsists.

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2010, 06:46:15 PM »
More food for though:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

Quote
AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

Quote
U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

Quote
HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

Lies, lies, and more lies

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2010, 07:00:55 PM »
Global warming is over. It has finally been laid to rest.

really?  Pretty sure that even if you don't believe in it,  and just so you know you are in a clear minority, that lots of other people do.  Thus, it hasn't been put to rest either factually or as a policy issue.

Considering a majority of that 'clear majority' gets news from the network news channels, of course they believe it's (anthropogenic) happening.  That clear majority also doesn't realize that Kansas once had glaciers as well. 

Up until recently, scientists have been trusted.  Now, the Scientific Method has been thrown out the window.  Until new studies can be done, which includes moving all the weather stations to locations away from UHI and assorted other heat sinks, then no major legislation should even be proposed.


Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2010, 07:57:11 PM »
did you read the bbc news interview?  The foxnews link is derivative of the interview (although does include a link from CATO), so not sure why you included it.

I'm thinking you never made it much past the headlines.


I read enough to see that this dude said the earth was warmer in the middle ages than it is now and there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years, and even has cooled (no significantly) in the last 8 years.

Are you just discrediting this? I mean this plus climategate should be enough to convince even the most dedicated warmsists.

1)  I wasn't aware that the Earth being warmer in the middle ages, no statistical warming over the past 15 years, a recent slight cooling trend (not statistically significant) and theories predicting global warming and a link to human behavior were mutually exclusive.  Are you claiming they are?

2)  If you think that "climategate" is some sort of monumental indictment, then why the hell would you cite as evidence some quotes, from one of the main perpetrators of a scandal that you think is a piece of conclusive proof that these scientists are unreliable and corrupt, and then ignore his actual conclusions from the same interview?

I don't claim to have any "expert" insight on the issue, I'm quite willing to hear evidence to the contrary.  You seem to be very sure of yourself without, so far, any good reason why.
@bentren

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2010, 08:45:04 PM »
did you read the bbc news interview?  The foxnews link is derivative of the interview (although does include a link from CATO), so not sure why you included it.

I'm thinking you never made it much past the headlines.


I read enough to see that this dude said the earth was warmer in the middle ages than it is now and there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years, and even has cooled (no significantly) in the last 8 years.

Are you just discrediting this? I mean this plus climategate should be enough to convince even the most dedicated warmsists.

1)  I wasn't aware that the Earth being warmer in the middle ages, no statistical warming over the past 15 years, a recent slight cooling trend (not statistically significant) and theories predicting global warming and a link to human behavior were mutually exclusive.  Are you claiming they are?

2)  If you think that "climategate" is some sort of monumental indictment, then why the hell would you cite as evidence some quotes, from one of the main perpetrators of a scandal that you think is a piece of conclusive proof that these scientists are unreliable and corrupt, and then ignore his actual conclusions from the same interview?

I don't claim to have any "expert" insight on the issue, I'm quite willing to hear evidence to the contrary.  You seem to be very sure of yourself without, so far, any good reason why.

As do you. I mean what more do you need? Hundreds of emails proving that data has been manipulated over the past several decades, now the lead climate scientist at UEA comes out and admits there is no warming trend (regardless of some of the other crap he said for damage control) and hasn't been for 15 years. Also, there have been several warming trends like the one of recent and the Earth continued to cool.

It's just a hoax so world governments can have more control over their citizens. But some people, like you, just won't believe since you don't want to admit you're wrong.


Quote
“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”  - Herman Van Rompuy, EU President

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2010, 09:00:21 PM »
You believe there is an international conspiracy for "one world government" involving (according to you) at a minimum: hundreds of climatologists, and no fewer than 20 country's leaders (including the Us, France, China, Germany, Russia, Brazil and Japan).

I would love to hear more. 

Let's start with:
Are the scientists being completely controlled by the governments (the science is completely fake) or is their cause being co-opted by the governments?  If the scientists are being directly told what to do by their governments, then why did the Bush administration work to supress NASA researcher's conclusions on climate change?

Why would no scientist come forward to expose this conspiracy?

What could possibly be the common interest between even the G20 nations?   
@bentren

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2010, 09:24:53 PM »
You believe there is an international conspiracy for "one world government" involving (according to you) at a minimum: hundreds of climatologists, and no fewer than 20 country's leaders (including the Us, France, China, Germany, Russia, Brazil and Japan).

I would love to hear more. 

Let's start with:
Are the scientists being completely controlled by the governments (the science is completely fake) or is their cause being co-opted by the governments?  If the scientists are being directly told what to do by their governments, then why did the Bush administration work to supress NASA researcher's conclusions on climate change?

Why would no scientist come forward to expose this conspiracy?

What could possibly be the common interest between even the G20 nations?   

Uh, yeah that's what's going on here. They tried to fabricate the data over the last century in order to control the people through climate legislation. See cap and trade and everything wrong with that pos bill.



Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2010, 09:28:27 PM »

Why would no scientist come forward to expose this conspiracy?


It's been exposed. See the EAU emails


What could possibly be the common interest between even the G20 nations?   


Redistribution of wealth. Didn't you see all of the loser protesters at Copenhagen that wanted something to get accomplished so they could get more money?

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2010, 09:56:54 PM »

Why would no scientist come forward to expose this conspiracy?


It's been exposed. See the EAU emails


What could possibly be the common interest between even the G20 nations?   


Redistribution of wealth. Didn't you see all of the loser protesters at Copenhagen that wanted something to get accomplished so they could get more money?

Why would the heads of the G20 have common cause with protesters with the objective being redistribution of wealth?  Is it just the scientists at East Anglican that are in on this or pretty much the whole community?  When do they find out that they are supposed to be fudging all their data?  Grad school?  Did the scientists/protestors/environmentalists get duped by a double-secret conspiracy by the G20 leaders as a pawn in the One World Government conspiracy?

Would really like to get more details, kind of hard to know who to trust at this point.  Should I start surveillance on my friends with more than the minimum number of science credits for a B.S.?
@bentren

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2010, 10:17:20 PM »
Are you saying the data isn't fudged? I think it's pretty clear that it is

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2010, 10:36:36 PM »
Are you saying the data isn't fudged? I think it's pretty clear that it is

Which data?  Did you read the articles you quoted?  You seem unsure as to whether the guy is a reputable source.  You quoted him to drive home the headlines about the lack of warming over the past 15 years, then you turn around and accuse him of being party to an international conspiracy of bad science.

I think if the bbc interview is even to be discussed you need to decide if that guy is a liar about some things, all things or no things.
@bentren

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2010, 10:40:52 PM »
Are you saying the data isn't fudged? I think it's pretty clear that it is

Which data?  Did you read the articles you quoted?  You seem unsure as to whether the guy is a reputable source.  You quoted him to drive home the headlines about the lack of warming over the past 15 years, then you turn around and accuse him of being party to an international conspiracy of bad science.

I think if the bbc interview is even to be discussed you need to decide if that guy is a liar about some things, all things or no things.

So you don't think the data is manipulated  :facepalm: You've clearly never read any of the emails

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 16331
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2010, 11:13:38 PM »
Are you saying the data isn't fudged? I think it's pretty clear that it is

Which data?  Did you read the articles you quoted?  You seem unsure as to whether the guy is a reputable source.  You quoted him to drive home the headlines about the lack of warming over the past 15 years, then you turn around and accuse him of being party to an international conspiracy of bad science.

I think if the bbc interview is even to be discussed you need to decide if that guy is a liar about some things, all things or no things.

So you don't think the data is manipulated  :facepalm: You've clearly never read any of the emails

I haven't read any of the emails, I've heard the same quotes you've heard and I read your link.  Have you read your link yet? 

Not sure if I granted that he's falsified his entire body would explain any of the crazy talk you posted before.

Also: are you going to answer any of my questions?
@bentren

Offline ben ji

  • Senior Moderator
  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 7376
  • Alot of people dont hit on an 18
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2010, 11:47:31 PM »

Why would no scientist come forward to expose this conspiracy?


It's been exposed. See the EAU emails


What could possibly be the common interest between even the G20 nations?   


Redistribution of wealth. Didn't you see all of the loser protesters at Copenhagen that wanted something to get accomplished so they could get more money?

Why would the heads of the G20 have common cause with protesters with the objective being redistribution of wealth?  Is it just the scientists at East Anglican that are in on this or pretty much the whole community?  When do they find out that they are supposed to be fudging all their data?  Grad school?  Did the scientists/protestors/environmentalists get duped by a double-secret conspiracy by the G20 leaders as a pawn in the One World Government conspiracy?

Would really like to get more details, kind of hard to know who to trust at this point.  Should I start surveillance on my friends with more than the minimum number of science credits for a B.S.?

Well since most the predictions are based on the EA models it would make since that most of the scientists are inadvertantly in on it.....

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2010, 12:09:13 AM »
Are you saying the data isn't fudged? I think it's pretty clear that it is

Which data?  Did you read the articles you quoted?  You seem unsure as to whether the guy is a reputable source.  You quoted him to drive home the headlines about the lack of warming over the past 15 years, then you turn around and accuse him of being party to an international conspiracy of bad science.

I think if the bbc interview is even to be discussed you need to decide if that guy is a liar about some things, all things or no things.

So you don't think the data is manipulated  :facepalm: You've clearly never read any of the emails

I haven't read any of the emails, I've heard the same quotes you've heard and I read your link.  Have you read your link yet?  

Not sure if I granted that he's falsified his entire body would explain any of the crazy talk you posted before.

Also: are you going to answer any of my questions?

You're asking too many questions and I really don't feel like answering them. Are you going to read any of the emails?

Edit: Read the emails and then try and tell me that the data wasn't falsified. I know you don't want to read them because you still want to believe in AGW, and you don't want to admit that you and most of the rest of the world has been wrong...for a long time
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 12:11:46 AM by pike »

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2010, 12:23:41 AM »
I know you hate Alex Jones, KatKid, but here's a good link that breaks down the emails. A lot about "hiding the decline" and excluding non warmists from IPCC reports etc:

http://www.infowars.com/climategate-for-dummies/

Offline theKSU

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1403
  • Team KSU
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2010, 01:07:46 PM »
So the emails of a few scientists now represent scientific evidence of the absence of global warming? 

This is sorta like the Acorn deal.  If you find one little thing that's wrong, then it completely confirms that you were right all along about the entire issue. 

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6949
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2010, 01:19:26 PM »
So the emails of a few scientists now represent scientific evidence of the absence of global warming? 

This is sorta like the Acorn deal.  If you find one little thing that's wrong, then it completely confirms that you were right all along about the entire issue. 

You need to realize that 100% of us believe that the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods. The problem is the evidence put forth by the Anglicans that all the warmers and politicians site as proof that AGW even exists was manipulated. There is no evidence that humans have in any way affected the climate on Earth.  There is proof, however, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are affected by the warming and cooling of oceans, not the other way around. The warmer the oceans are, the less CO2 it they can absorb, therefore, the more CO2 in the atmosphere.  Once the oceans begin to cool, they will absorb the excess.

Offline pike

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5138
  • BIG GREEN EGG!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #45 on: February 16, 2010, 04:53:07 PM »
So the emails of a few scientists now represent scientific evidence of the absence of global warming? 

This is sorta like the Acorn deal.  If you find one little thing that's wrong, then it completely confirms that you were right all along about the entire issue. 

You mean the hundreds of emails and documents between scientists that are the main proponents or AGW at the worlds leading climate research university (even the UN relies on them). Yeah I think it pretty much debunks AGW. You're just like kat kid, you don't want to admit you're wrong

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #46 on: February 25, 2010, 03:50:10 PM »


Quote
Recent changes in ocean circulation in the North Atlantic are delivering larger amounts of subtropical waters to the high latitudes. A research team led by Fiamma Straneo, a physical oceanographer at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, found that subtropical waters are reaching Greenland's glaciers, driving melting and likely triggering an acceleration of ice loss. Melting ice also means more fresh water in the ocean, which could flood into the North Atlantic and disrupt a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor. (Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

From a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution News Release : Team finds subtropical waters flushing through Greenland fjord

Waters from warmer latitudes ? or subtropical waters ? are reaching Greenland’s glaciers, driving melting and likely triggering an acceleration of ice loss, reports a team of researchers led by Fiamma Straneo, a physical oceanographer from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).

“This is the first time we’ve seen waters this warm in any of the fjords in Greenland,” says Straneo. “The subtropical waters are flowing through the fjord very quickly, so they can transport heat and drive melting at the end of the glacier.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/16/greenland-glaciers-melt-due-to-sea-current-change-not-air-temperature/#more-16481



Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Climategate
« Reply #47 on: February 25, 2010, 03:52:44 PM »
Watch the Wilkins ice shelf collapse in time lapse animation ? looks like ‘current’ events to me where mechanisms other than melt were discussed. It was pointed out that this photo appeared to be showing a stress crack, like the sort you’d get from a wave. Melt makes rounded irregular edges, not sharp straight line ones.



Now there’s a study from Scripps that suggests that long period waves could be a big factor.

Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapse Possibly Triggered by Ocean Waves, Scripps-led Study Finds

Extremely long waves could have initiated 2008 collapse events

Scripps Institution of Oceanography / University of California, San Diego

Depicting a cause-and-effect scenario that spans thousands of miles, a scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego and his collaborators discovered that ocean waves originating along the Pacific coasts of North and South America impact Antarctic ice shelves and could play a role in their catastrophic collapse.



Peter Bromirski of Scripps Oceanography is the lead scientist in a new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters that describes how storms over the North Pacific Ocean may be transferring enough wave energy to destabilize Antarctic ice shelves. The California Department of Boating and Waterways and the National Science Foundation supported the study.

According to Bromirski, storm-driven ocean swells travel across the Pacific Ocean and break along the coastlines of North and South America, where they are transformed into very long-period ocean waves called “infragravity waves” that travel vast distances to Antarctica.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/13/antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-possibly-triggered-by-ocean-waves/#more-16410

Offline CatsFan_58

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 667
    • View Profile