can someone explain this scandal to me
This topic is locked from further discussion.
really i read they were legit emails about scientists plotting to destroy information that didnt support global warmingboba707If you ever paid attention to how people talk in TEXT.. when talking to people they' know.. then you'd be well aware that most conversations don't really hold that much information to conclude anything specific. It's just a typical media ploy to attempt to spin a certain story that doesn't really exist.
a media ploy none of the mainstream media is showing itboba707I don't see what mainstream media has to do with it. Non Mainstream media is just as capable as printing questionable content.
If you ever paid attention to how people talk in TEXT.. when talking to people they' know.. then you'd be well aware that most conversations don't really hold that much information to conclude anything specific. It's just a typical media ploy to attempt to spin a certain story that doesn't really exist.[QUOTE="boba707"]really i read they were legit emails about scientists plotting to destroy information that didnt support global warmingEMOEVOLUTION
The emails are legitimate. The fact that any data was manipulated is pretty sad, because they still haven't able to show factually that man-made global warming was ever occurring. The only way the warmers, people like you, were ever able obtain some sort of farcical "consensus" was by either intimidating and shutting out opposition, or trying to discredit them on non-scientific grounds.
Perhaps you don't fully understand. If you're going to make the claim that the world will be thrown into some giant, human-generated, string of natural catastrophes in a couple of decades, and that the only way to stop it is to completely ruin our economy and destroy our current way of life.....the burden of proof is on YOU, big time. And unfortunately, no one has ever been able to fulfill that burden of proof with REAL, unaltered, unquestionable empirical data.
The global warming gig is up. Even if it is occurring, the warmers just ruined their chance at getting public support. Their should have been a transparent, honest, lengthy debate. All opposition data and arguments should have been taken into account and made just as public. Unfortunately, that's not the way it went down.
These "scientists" were hiding, massaging and/or destroying their raw data and discussed how to discredit scientists who stood up against the lie that is global warming. They even have programmers notes explaining how the data input into their computer models were fudged so the models would churn out the information they wanted to see. Aside from being highly unethical it made their idea that the earth is still warming appear correct, which isn't exactly true as the raw data has apparently been showing that the planet hasn't been heating for the past 10 years or so.
Aside from what the guy above makes it seem like this is no big deal, "look the other way.", this is scientific fraud of a high order. It is also quite illegal considering the amount of money that has been funded to them. Note the lead scientist Phil Jones of the Climate Research Center has resigned from his position due to this, apparently it does mean a lot there chum...
Some hacker took some personal emails and put them on the web. the Skeptics proceeded to take them wildly out of context, in some cases calling it the smoking gun that climate change is a conspiracy.
If you ever paid attention to how people talk in TEXT.. when talking to people they' know.. then you'd be well aware that most conversations don't really hold that much information to conclude anything specific. It's just a typical media ploy to attempt to spin a certain story that doesn't really exist.[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]
[QUOTE="boba707"]really i read they were legit emails about scientists plotting to destroy information that didnt support global warmingMark_the_Lie
The emails are legitimate. The fact that any data was manipulated is pretty sad, because they still haven't able to show factually that man-made global warming was ever occurring. The only way the warmers, people like you, were ever able obtain some sort of farcical "consensus" was by either intimidating and shutting out opposition, or trying to discredit them on non-scientific grounds.
Perhaps you don't fully understand. If you're going to make the claim that the world will be thrown into some giant, human-generated, string of natural catastrophes in a couple of decades, and that the only way to stop it is to completely ruin our economy and destroy our current way of life.....the burden of proof is on YOU, big time. And unfortunately, no one has ever been able to fulfill that burden of proof with REAL, unaltered, unquestionable empirical data.
The global warming gig is up. Even if it is occurring, the warmers just ruined their chance at getting public support. Their should have been a transparent, honest, lengthy debate. All opposition data and arguments should have been taken into account and made just as public. Unfortunately, that's not the way it went down.
What are you talking about? If you read the emails it's pretty obvious they're is no specific information in them that would indicate any wrong doing. Just take your time and watch how people you know person to person communicate through text.. it's hardly as descriptive or as informative as a history book... far from it in fact. sure, there might be a few questions of concern, but I don't see anything conclusive. Really, there is nothing here. Just people looking for any excuse they can to say Global Warming doesn't exist... because they've run out of scientific means to do so.. they take emails that could be about anything, and try to say their is some big conspiracy..I don't really see anything conclusive in the emails. Just some vague words being put together to make something out of nothing.These "scientists" were hiding, massaging and/or destroying their raw data and discussed how to discredit scientists who stood up against the lie that is global warming. They even have programmers notes explaining how the data input into their computer models were fudged so the models would churn out the information they wanted to see. Aside from being highly unethical it made their idea that the earth is still warming appear correct, which isn't exactly true as the raw data has apparently been showing that the planet hasn't been heating for the past 10 years or so.
Aside from what the guy above makes it seem like this is no big deal, "look the other way.", this is scientific fraud of a high order. It is also quite illegal considering the amount of money that has been funded to them. Note the lead scientist Phil Jones of the Climate Research Center has resigned from his position due to this, apparently it does mean a lot there chum...
jer_1
[QUOTE="jer_1"]I don't really see anything conclusive in the emails. Just some vague words being put together to make something out of nothing.These "scientists" were hiding, massaging and/or destroying their raw data and discussed how to discredit scientists who stood up against the lie that is global warming. They even have programmers notes explaining how the data input into their computer models were fudged so the models would churn out the information they wanted to see. Aside from being highly unethical it made their idea that the earth is still warming appear correct, which isn't exactly true as the raw data has apparently been showing that the planet hasn't been heating for the past 10 years or so.
Aside from what the guy above makes it seem like this is no big deal, "look the other way.", this is scientific fraud of a high order. It is also quite illegal considering the amount of money that has been funded to them. Note the lead scientist Phil Jones of the Climate Research Center has resigned from his position due to this, apparently it does mean a lot there chum...
EMOEVOLUTION
There are more than just emails in this file, I know this for certain. I have a copy of it right on my harddrive. Besides the fact that many of the emails aren't vague, and even call others into the argument, such as John Holdren or "Holdren".
I don't really see anything conclusive in the emails. Just some vague words being put together to make something out of nothing.[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="jer_1"]
These "scientists" were hiding, massaging and/or destroying their raw data and discussed how to discredit scientists who stood up against the lie that is global warming. They even have programmers notes explaining how the data input into their computer models were fudged so the models would churn out the information they wanted to see. Aside from being highly unethical it made their idea that the earth is still warming appear correct, which isn't exactly true as the raw data has apparently been showing that the planet hasn't been heating for the past 10 years or so.
Aside from what the guy above makes it seem like this is no big deal, "look the other way.", this is scientific fraud of a high order. It is also quite illegal considering the amount of money that has been funded to them. Note the lead scientist Phil Jones of the Climate Research Center has resigned from his position due to this, apparently it does mean a lot there chum...
jer_1
There are more than just emails in this file, I know this for certain. I have a copy of it right on my harddrive.
Ok, tell us what these other files tell you.[QUOTE="jer_1"]
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] I don't really see anything conclusive in the emails. Just some vague words being put together to make something out of nothing.htekemerald
There are more than just emails in this file, I know this for certain. I have a copy of it right on my harddrive.
Ok, tell us what these other files tell you.Well of course much of the data I can't make heads or tails out of but there are a few things of note. Files about inconsistencies of the computer data, documents of the CRU's strategy agenda, and a specific text file titled "HARRY READ ME" which seems to talk exactly how they went about changing/manipulating the data to their liking...
Ok, tell us what these other files tell you.[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
[QUOTE="jer_1"]
There are more than just emails in this file, I know this for certain. I have a copy of it right on my harddrive.
jer_1
Well of course much of the data I can't make heads or tails out of but there are a few things of note. Files about inconsistencies of the computer data, documents of the CRU's strategy agenda, and a specific text file titled "HARRY READ ME" which seems to talk exactly how they went about changing/manipulating the data to their liking...
Manipulating. Does this document actually say this, or are you just throwing that in there.
[QUOTE="Mark_the_Lie"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] If you ever paid attention to how people talk in TEXT.. when talking to people they' know.. then you'd be well aware that most conversations don't really hold that much information to conclude anything specific. It's just a typical media ploy to attempt to spin a certain story that doesn't really exist.
EMOEVOLUTION
The emails are legitimate. The fact that any data was manipulated is pretty sad, because they still haven't able to show factually that man-made global warming was ever occurring. The only way the warmers, people like you, were ever able obtain some sort of farcical "consensus" was by either intimidating and shutting out opposition, or trying to discredit them on non-scientific grounds.
Perhaps you don't fully understand. If you're going to make the claim that the world will be thrown into some giant, human-generated, string of natural catastrophes in a couple of decades, and that the only way to stop it is to completely ruin our economy and destroy our current way of life.....the burden of proof is on YOU, big time. And unfortunately, no one has ever been able to fulfill that burden of proof with REAL, unaltered, unquestionable empirical data.
The global warming gig is up. Even if it is occurring, the warmers just ruined their chance at getting public support. Their should have been a transparent, honest, lengthy debate. All opposition data and arguments should have been taken into account and made just as public. Unfortunately, that's not the way it went down.
What are you talking about? If you read the emails it's pretty obvious they're is no specific information in them that would indicate any wrong doing. Just take your time and watch how people you know person to person communicate through text.. it's hardly as descriptive or as informative as a history book... far from it in fact. sure, there might be a few questions of concern, but I don't see anything conclusive. Really, there is nothing here. Just people looking for any excuse they can to say Global Warming doesn't exist... because they've run out of scientific means to do so.. they take emails that could be about anything, and try to say their is some big conspiracy..No one has even come close to definitively showing that man-made global warming exists. Every piece of data that has been used to try and prove it does exist has been shot down by opposition, because the data can be looked at a hundred different ways. Al Gore's movie didn't help his cause either, because there's an endless amount of scientific journal articles out there now demonstrating how all of his data is inaccurate and how he assumes cause and effect based on what are actually coincidental correlations. Thus, he and his global warming posse had to resort to intimidation and censorship.
It's like if I say God exists, and then I try to support that by saying that life, love, emotions, and universal order are evidence of His existence. You can turn around and say He doesn't exist, because those things all have an explanation other than God. What you are essentially doing is turning global warming into a god of sorts, and worshipping it without really evaluating the data and opposing arguments. The climatology community has become a modern day Roman Catholic church of the 15th century; they defame, excommunicate, and shut out anyone who opposes them. That's why people aren't buying it, and rightly so.
[QUOTE="jer_1"]
[QUOTE="htekemerald"] Ok, tell us what these other files tell you.
htekemerald
Well of course much of the data I can't make heads or tails out of but there are a few things of note. Files about inconsistencies of the computer data, documents of the CRU's strategy agenda, and a specific text file titled "HARRY READ ME" which seems to talk exactly how they went about changing/manipulating the data to their liking...
Manipulating. Does this document actually say this, or are you just throwing that in there.
No, this is manipulated data. They talk about it in this file.
Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start
in 1962, it didn't open until 1993! Looking at the data - the COBAR station 1962-2004 seems to be
an exact copy of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station 1962-2004, except that the latter has more missing
values. Now, COBAR AIRPORT AWS has 15 months of missing value codes beginning Oct 1993.. coincidence?
No. I think that that series should start there. Furthermore, the overlap between COBAR and COBAR MO
(2000-2004) is *almost* identical:...
It looks like they had some really terrible programming going on here resulting in a bad computer model, they seem to be forcing it to work by some shady techniques.
Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by
Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station
counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented
sufficiently to say that.
Well, this file is about as long as a 200 page book, all jammed in one .txt file with a lot of extraneous data and programming that they discuss over. It's a painful read but you can tell that they are discussing how to come about getting the results they already had in mind.
[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
[QUOTE="jer_1"]
Well of course much of the data I can't make heads or tails out of but there are a few things of note. Files about inconsistencies of the computer data, documents of the CRU's strategy agenda, and a specific text file titled "HARRY READ ME" which seems to talk exactly how they went about changing/manipulating the data to their liking...
jer_1
Manipulating. Does this document actually say this, or are you just throwing that in there.
No, this is manipulated data. They talk about it in this file.
Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start
in 1962, it didn't open until 1993! Looking at the data - the COBAR station 1962-2004 seems to be
an exact copy of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station 1962-2004, except that the latter has more missing
values. Now, COBAR AIRPORT AWS has 15 months of missing value codes beginning Oct 1993.. coincidence?
No. I think that that series should start there. Furthermore, the overlap between COBAR and COBAR MO
(2000-2004) is *almost* identical:...
It looks like they had some really terrible programming going on here resulting in a bad computer model, they seem to be forcing it to work by some shady techniques.
So they are trying to make the best of bad data?And do you have any knowledge to be calling their techniques shady?
[QUOTE="jer_1"]
[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
Manipulating. Does this document actually say this, or are you just throwing that in there.
htekemerald
No, this is manipulated data. They talk about it in this file.
Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start
in 1962, it didn't open until 1993! Looking at the data - the COBAR station 1962-2004 seems to be
an exact copy of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station 1962-2004, except that the latter has more missing
values. Now, COBAR AIRPORT AWS has 15 months of missing value codes beginning Oct 1993.. coincidence?
No. I think that that series should start there. Furthermore, the overlap between COBAR and COBAR MO
(2000-2004) is *almost* identical:...
It looks like they had some really terrible programming going on here resulting in a bad computer model, they seem to be forcing it to work by some shady techniques.
So they are trying to make the best of bad data?And do you have any knowledge to be calling their techniques shady?
I would say believing they have an accurate computer models based off of bad data pretty shady at best. Do you have no complaints to being taxed for living and producing carbon when, in truth, global warming might not even be real? I do, I don't know about you. Maybe you just accept it and are fine with it but I for one do not accept it. I simply want at the VERY LEAST an open debate on this, there isn't even that. Any time a legit scientist steps up with data saying that global warming is incorrect the are completely discredited and removed from the spotlight, and this is what is the most upsetting. Hold these peoples feet to the fire at least man!
Basically what happened is, scientists disagree whether global warming is real or not.TauruslinkI can't help but think thats not the case.. I mean Bush hand picked a panel of scientists to go out and supposedly debunk it.. Instead they came back and found out that is indeed happepning and man may have some possible affect on it, with how fast its going.. Global warming is happening, the problem is we don't want to speed the process up it could lead to a ice age again..
So they are trying to make the best of bad data?[QUOTE="htekemerald"]
[QUOTE="jer_1"]
No, this is manipulated data. They talk about it in this file.
Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn't it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start
in 1962, it didn't open until 1993! Looking at the data - the COBAR station 1962-2004 seems to be
an exact copy of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station 1962-2004, except that the latter has more missing
values. Now, COBAR AIRPORT AWS has 15 months of missing value codes beginning Oct 1993.. coincidence?
No. I think that that series should start there. Furthermore, the overlap between COBAR and COBAR MO
(2000-2004) is *almost* identical:...
It looks like they had some really terrible programming going on here resulting in a bad computer model, they seem to be forcing it to work by some shady techniques.
jer_1
And do you have any knowledge to be calling their techniques shady?
I would say believing they have an accurate computer models based off of bad data pretty shady at best. Do you have no complaints to being taxed for living and producing carbon when, in truth, global warming might not even be real? I do, I don't know about you. Maybe you just accept it and are fine with it but I for one do not accept it. I simply want at the VERY LEAST an open debate on this, there isn't even that. Any time a legit scientist steps up with data saying that global warming is incorrect the are completely discredited and removed from the spotlight, and this is what is the most upsetting. Hold these peoples feet to the fire at least man!
Who is talking about taxation? Its always the skeptics with their special interests and motivations that are the first to cry bias. I am sick of the people of both extreme sides of this debate who have no clue what science they just want their result out of it.and as for scientists getting sidelined, its not nearly as common as its made out to be but it does unfortunately happen. Why? Look at anyone who speaks up with dissent in any segment of society.
[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]Basically what happened is, scientists disagree whether global warming is real or not.sSubZerOoI can't help but think thats not the case.. I mean Bush hand picked a panel of scientists to go out and supposedly debunk it.. Instead they came back and found out that is indeed happepning and man may have some possible affect on it, with how fast its going.. Global warming is happening, the problem is we don't want to speed the process up it could lead to a ice age again.. And the thing is. The vast majority of climatologists know it is fact that it is occurring. One mistaken or false piece of data does not equate to every piece of data being of the exact same type. Global warming isn't just based off of one set of data from one small group of scientists, it is based off of satellite imagery and tons of other data sources, including NASA, that are legit.
This isn't receiving as much coverage as it should, thenagain mainstreamusuallyreports nothing worth while. I highly doubt this news will stop the Cap and Tax legislation.Although there are several Representatives calling for further investigation into the accusations. If it is a conspiracy those whopreached aboutAGW better be held responsible for their false claims.
http://www.infowars.com/rep-miller-calls-for-climategate-investigation/
http://www.infowars.com/call-for-independent-inquiry-into-climategate-as-global-warming-fraud-implodes/
Am I the only one who is starting to get annoyed with the overuse of the suffix "-gate" at the end of every scandal?
This. It's nothing but ammunition for deniers. Like it does anything to discredit the six thousand peer reviewed papers on the subject at all.There is no scandal.. just people trying to drum up publicity over nothing.
EMOEVOLUTION
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]This. It's nothing but ammunition for deniers. Like it does anything to discredit the six thousand peer reviewed papers on the subject at all.Exactly. This entire thing is completely rediculous. There have been many MANY tests and studies done on climate change.There is no scandal.. just people trying to drum up publicity over nothing.
HoolaHoopMan
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is universally recognized as the world's most authoritative voice on the science on climate change. It was established by the United Nations and consists of over 2000 scientists from 100 different countries with the role of assessing the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to climate change, as well as its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. This panel found that warming over the past 50 years is mainly a result of human interaction with the environment with it's findings publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G8 countries. (From the David Suzuki Foundation). This entire thing is complete nonsense. Global Warming and the science behind it is not based off the work of just 4 people.
This. It's nothing but ammunition for deniers. Like it does anything to discredit the six thousand peer reviewed papers on the subject at all.Exactly. This entire thing is completely rediculous. There have been many MANY tests and studies done on climate change.[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]
There is no scandal.. just people trying to drum up publicity over nothing.
BumFluff122
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is universally recognized as the world's most authoritative voice on the science on climate change. It was established by the United Nations and consists of over 2000 scientists from 100 different countries with the role of assessing the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to climate change, as well as its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. This panel found that warming over the past 50 years is mainly a result of human interaction with the environment with it's findings publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G8 countries. (From the David Suzuki Foundation). This entire thing is complete nonsense. Global Warming and the science behind it is not based off the work of just 4 people.
Excellent post, BumFluff.
No, there is definitely a scandal. But nowhere near the degree that global warming deniers make it out to be. None of these emails prove that global warming is a hoax. However, some of these scientists in question were denying freedom of information acts and were actually encouraging the deletion of data that was subject to freedom of information acts.There is no scandal.. just people trying to drum up publicity over nothing.
EMOEVOLUTION
Absolutely pure BS. There are thousands of peer reviewed papers out there that exist explaining the link between global climate change and the link to solar output and CO2 interactions. It exists, you just don't seem to see it by closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and humming sweet dixie. It's the same nonsense that creationists use to disprove evolution, they ignore evidence plain and simple.No one has even come close to definitively showing that man-made global warming exists. Every piece of data that has been used to try and prove it does exist has been shot down by opposition, because the data can be looked at a hundred different ways. Al Gore's movie didn't help his cause either, because there's an endless amount of scientific journal articles out there now demonstrating how all of his data is inaccurate and how he assumes cause and effect based on what are actually coincidental correlations. Thus, he and his global warming posse had to resort to intimidation and censorship.
It's like if I say God exists, and then I try to support that by saying that life, love, emotions, and universal order are evidence of His existence. You can turn around and say He doesn't exist, because those things all have an explanation other than God. What you are essentially doing is turning global warming into a god of sorts, and worshipping it without really evaluating the data and opposing arguments. The climatology community has become a modern day Roman Catholic church of the 15th century; they defame, excommunicate, and shut out anyone who opposes them. That's why people aren't buying it, and rightly so.
Mark_the_Lie
Exactly. This entire thing is completely rediculous. There have been many MANY tests and studies done on climate change.[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] This. It's nothing but ammunition for deniers. Like it does anything to discredit the six thousand peer reviewed papers on the subject at all.chessmaster1989
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is universally recognized as the world's most authoritative voice on the science on climate change. It was established by the United Nations and consists of over 2000 scientists from 100 different countries with the role of assessing the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to climate change, as well as its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. This panel found that warming over the past 50 years is mainly a result of human interaction with the environment with it's findings publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G8 countries. (From the David Suzuki Foundation). This entire thing is complete nonsense. Global Warming and the science behind it is not based off the work of just 4 people.
Excellent post, BumFluff.
Thankyou. I'd like to thank the coders of Firefox and everyone that have put their time and money into programming it for includign the cut and paste feature lol.WOW this is one of my biggest pet peeves. people who add "gate" to the end of every scandal and think they're so damn witty. Nothing against the TC, just against the media that is shamelessly self-indulgent in their own wittiness. hamstergeddon*prepares for Gamespotgate*
There were some hacked emails that proved, among other things, that climate scientists were trying to subvert the peer-review process and prevent skeptics of global warming from being published and (I say this very tentatively) that scientists were falsely reporting data so that it would support the thesis of anthropogenic global warming.can someone explain this scandal to me
boba707
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment