Hackers skewed climate-change emails: scientists

[Gertch]

I don't even see why this thread is necessary. It was pretty much over with this post:

This always has been a political issue and not a scientific one.

Thank you. I thought it a particularly brilliant post as well.

Copenhagen Is The ‘Social Justice’ Moment

by Andrew Marcus Did you know the environmental movement is not just about being a good steward of your environment so that you may, to the best of your ability, pass on an inhabitable planet to future generations? Nope.
It turns out that’s just the sweet sugary frosting on top of the social justice pie.
For a glimpse into the social(ist) justice ideology motivating the Progressive Global Warming Climate Change movement, take a look at the video below, produced by a community organization called smartMeme.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4fP_DNu0C8[/yt]
​

The video promotes turning Copenhagen into a moment for “ecological justice.”

 

[Arrqh]

I don't even see why this thread is necessary. It was pretty much over with this post:

This always has been a political issue and not a scientific one.

Thank you. I thought it a particularly brilliant post as well.

Wow, selective quoting. Did you think of that all by yourself?

Your entire tactic is not based on actually responding to the science behind the issue... instead, you and those of your ilk are instead trying to tarnish the people who performed the research as if this invalidates the results. The mode of thinking is clearly political and anti-science. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care at all for science... so why are you even bothering to post in the SciTech forum? If you want to make a fool of yourself by ignoring reality and engaging it on fallacious political grounds, TNZ is further down.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

I don't even see why this thread is necessary. It was pretty much over with this post:

It's exactly the same as evolution deniers, anti-vaxers, young earth creationists.. they believe what they want and no amount of evidence will ever convince them. Facts are secondary, bias is primary.

Wow, what a heaping pile of generalization there. Personally I'm a Bush-voting republican(...and I actually vote. If you didn't you got no right to bitch about anything.), a pro-choicer, a believer that evolution occurred and still is, vaccines are fine, and there's no place in my life for religion.

All that being said, I'm firmly convinced that that human influenced climate change being a danger to the ecosystem is a fallacy, and that the CRU cooked the books to promote their agenda (there's your bias, pal!), then destroyed the raw data to cover their tracks. The raw data HAD to exist in the curent working form at some point, as you simply don't import stuff and manipulate the original imported file unless you're a total bonehead. The climate models used are not available for scrutiny peer review.

As science, human influenced global warming stinks like... dead fish left someplace warm.

 

[Arrqh]

I don't even see why this thread is necessary. It was pretty much over with this post:

It's exactly the same as evolution deniers, anti-vaxers, young earth creationists.. they believe what they want and no amount of evidence will ever convince them. Facts are secondary, bias is primary.

Wow, what a heaping pile of generalization there. Personally I'm a Bush-voting republican(...and I actually vote. If you didn't you got no right to bitch about anything.), a pro-choicer, a believer that evolution occurred and still is, vaccines are fine, and there's no place in my life for religion.

All that being said, I'm firmly convinced that that human influenced climate change being a danger to the ecosystem is a fallacy, and that the CRU cooked the books to promote their agenda (there's your bias, pal!), then destroyed the raw data to cover their tracks. The raw data HAD to exist in the curent working form at some point, as you simply don't import stuff and manipulate the original imported file unless you're a total bonehead. The climate models used are not available for scrutiny peer review.

As science, human influenced global warming stinks like... dead fish left someplace warm.

Nope, it isn't a generalization at all. I did not say that all climate change deniers are also creationists, etc. I did say that it is the same mode of thought. Because it is. It's what happens when people put more credence into belief then facts, when people put more weight into the researchers over the research.

The lack of the raw data for current analysis does not invalidate the findings. It doesn't even call the findings in to doubt because it is consistent with other data. The fact that some people would rather believe in laughably incredulous conspiracy theories over actual data and models speaks volumes. Again, people like you appear to be more interested in tearing down the scientists instead of the actual science. Not being able to see the difference between the two is the fundamental flaw here.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

The lack of the raw data for current analysis does not invalidate the findings.

This is the part where Arrqh says "I have no clue as to how scientific method works, particularly that whole 'ability to duplicate results' thing."

 

[AnyStar]

what lack of data? there have been tedious written records of climate and weather down to the tiniest regional areas all over the world for more than a century. if that isnt enough data to sort through what is?

 

[Arrqh]

The lack of the raw data for current analysis does not invalidate the findings.

This is the part where Arrqh says "I have no clue as to how scientific method works, particularly that whole 'ability to duplicate results' thing."

Which is again telling... this whole farce is nothing more then an elaborate ad hominem against climatologists just as your last post was one against me. Instead of talking about the science you're talking about the people.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Nope, I'm talking about science. If it can't be duplicated in additional experiments, it isn't proven. Same thing as the "Wow!" signal.

 

[Arrqh]

Except that it has been duplicated in other experiments using different data. That's the whole point. That's why missing raw data from 20 years ago doesn't matter because it isn't the only valid data.

It's amazing that you think that you can talk about "science" when at the same time, you can completely ignore things that are inconvenient to your viewpoint.

Edit: Bringing up the wow signal is actually really funny because it is completely different. It was a one time event and we still have all the raw data from the original observation. We know it happened. What we don't know is what it was. How does this have anything at all to do with climate change?

 

[Gertch]

Yes, original data. Maybe that's suspect as well...

Anthony is a meteorologist who blew the lid on the scandalous placement of official U.S. government thermometers – even movement to — asphalt pads, Arizona parking lots, next to hot air vents, above barbecue grills, and so on with the convenient result of a warming bias.


http://tinyurl.com/yh4c66u

Emphasis mine.

 

[Arrqh]

Thank goodness you're here to link us to random, unsourced blogs and to post non-sequitor images! I suppose that's a lot easier then actually engaging in a scientific discussion.

Why are you posting in SciTech again? Cause it clearly isn't to talk about science.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

What we don't know is what it was. How does this have anything at all to do with climate change?

Because the Wow signal can never be duplicated and because data tossed by your champions can't be recreated.

Both have to go in the garbage bin as invalid science.

Actually I find the image posted by Gertch to be quite amusing... and yes it is talking about science, specifically, the bad science conducted by the CRU. This is right up there with polywater!!

 

[PlixTixiplik]

What we don't know is what it was. How does this have anything at all to do with climate change?

Because the Wow signal can never be duplicated and because data tossed by your champions can't be recreated.

Both have to go in the garbage bin as invalid science.

Actually I find the image posted by Gertch to be quite amusing... and yes it is talking about science, specifically, the bad science conducted by the CRU. This is right up there with polywater!!

You've really bought into the right-wing spin, hook line and sinker. The original data are still available, at the meteorological services who originally collected them. Nothing has been tossed and anyone who wants to can collate the data themselves.

Also, as has been pointed out repeatedly - if the CRU people faked or nudged or tweaked a bunch of data, why do several completely independent analyses come to the same conclusion!?

In fact, a key point here is that other groups—primarily at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), but also in Russia—WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and UK Hadley Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication completely independently. They made different choices in the complex process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT data results.

 

[Arrqh]

Because the Wow signal can never be duplicated and because data tossed by your champions can't be recreated.

So... what, do you deny that the wow signal happened then?

I'm not aware of having any "champions" though. All I see is people who care more about politics vs. those who care more about science. The fact that this is even a "debate" is, well, sad.

 

[John Picard]

Al Gore Cancels $1,200 Per Handshake Event In Copenhagen

Al Gore apparently has canceled a high-priced speaking engagement during the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen.As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, the Nobel Laureate was slated to lecture about his new book "Our Choice" where attendees could pay over $1,200 a ticket for the right to meet the Global Warmingist-in-Chief and have their picture taken with him.
According to Danish newspaper Berlingske, this has been canceled due to "unforeseen changes" to Gore's schedule (rough translation follows, h/t Marc Morano):

From what NewsBusters can tell, this is the $1,200 per handshake lecture. Unfortunately, the link advertising this event at VisitCopenhagen.com now goes to a page claiming "This page cannot be found."
However, the cached version disclosed:

The lecture with Al Gore is on 16 December 2009 in one of the old bottling halls, Tap 1, at Carlsberg Brewery. Tap 1 is a new venue for concerts, lectures and exhibitions in Copenhagen's new developing area of Carlsberg's old brewery site.​

Of course, because this did not come from a Left-Leaning source that worships their god of the global warming religion, it is therefore false

​

 

[Gertch]

Thank goodness you're here

You're welcome.

to link us to random, unsourced blogs and to post non-sequitor images! I suppose that's a lot easier then actually engaging in a scientific discussion.

You've learned the lesson of questioning data. Next is factually refuting the issue instead of clumsily trying to insult others.

Now if only we can get our politicians to do that rather than blindly follow a political agenda.

Why are you posting in SciTech again? Cause it clearly isn't to talk about science.

What part of this is talking about the science? Oh it's not. It's simply a lame attempt to stifle information - just like the Warmers are doing with the leaked emails. Cool!

 

[Arrqh]

You've learned the lesson of questioning data. Next is factually refuting the issue instead of clumsily trying to insult others.

Well leading by example certainly isn't your strong point

You've already admitted that you don't care about science, you care about politics. You don't "question data"... you toss out data that you find to be inconvenient because it doesn't line up with your adopted ideology. You'd rather engage in ad hominems then actually talk about the real facts. And you have the audacity to claim that it's others who are stifling information.

Once again, this is the SciTech forum. You have made it very clear that you don't want to talk about science and it's pretty clear that you don't even understand science. If you'd like to actually learn, there's plenty of people here who I'm sure would be willing to help you out. I'd suggest actually paying attention to any of PlixTixiplik's posts as a start instead of posting diminutive comics. If you're just here for political bluster... well, that's just too bad, isn't it?

The core point here is... climatologists as a whole could be raging homophobe, sexist, racist, baby eating zombies. It wouldn't matter in the slightest because it doesn't change the scientific facts. If all you want to do is slag of scientists who have reached conclusions that you don't like all it shows is that you have absolutely no understanding of how science works; you're treating it like politics. And that just ain't right.

 

[Gertch]

You've learned the lesson of questioning data. Next is factually refuting the issue instead of clumsily trying to insult others.

Well leading by example certainly isn't your strong point

You've already admitted that you don't care about science, you care about politics. You don't "question data"... you toss out data that you find to be inconvenient because it doesn't line up with your adopted ideology. You'd rather engage in ad hominems then actually talk about the real facts. And you have the audacity to claim that it's others who are stifling information.

Once again, this is the SciTech forum. You have made it very clear that you don't want to talk about science and it's pretty clear that you don't even understand science. If you'd like to actually learn, there's plenty of people here who I'm sure would be willing to help you out. I'd suggest actually paying attention to any of PlixTixiplik's posts as a start instead of posting diminutive comics. If you're just here for political bluster... well, that's just too bad, isn't it?

The core point here is... climatologists as a whole could be raging homophobe, sexist, racist, baby eating zombies. It wouldn't matter in the slightest because it doesn't change the scientific facts. If all you want to do is slag of scientists who have reached conclusions that you don't like all it shows is that you have absolutely no understanding of how science works; you're treating it like politics. And that just ain't right.

Again a great example of clumsily trying to insult others rather than address the err of scientists I've brought forth. There isn't one word in your post concerning the science at all. Take your own advice.

UN climate chief: Hacked e-mails are damaging

Even so, he worried that e-mails pilfered from a British university would fuel skepticism among those who believe that scientists exaggerate global warming.


"I think a lot of people are skeptical about this issue in any case," de Boer told The Associated Press earlier Sunday. "And then when they have the feeling ... that scientists are manipulating information in a certain direction then of course it causes concern in a number of people to say 'you see I told you so, this is not a real issue.'"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CDSUF00&show_article=1

Even the Warmers can see people aren't buying the junk science. There is no need to ruin the economy further on a made up issue as man made global warming. They need to drop the wish to control other's behavior and come to the light side.

 

[Arrqh]

Again a great example of clumsily trying to insult others rather than address the err of scientists I've brought forth. There isn't one word in your post concerning the science at all. Take your own advice.

You're polluting this thread with your horrifically biased political views and I'm responding to it. The science is already here and you're willfully ignoring it. Why?

Even the Warmers can see people aren't buying the junk science. There is no need to ruin the economy further on a made up issue as man made global warming. They need to drop the wish to control other's behavior and come to the light side.

There is no junk science here, only junk politics. I don't know who these imagined "warmers" that you've invented are, but the UN climate chief is right... people like you are so taken in by mudraking and politics that the actual science gets lost. The leaked emails are doing exactly what they were supposed to do... obfuscate and distract the public from the real science involved. You seem to have bought it hook, line and sinker. And since you're the sort to think that taking harmful silver is a valid medical alternative, that isn't particularly surprising. And because this sort of thing is going to hurt everyone as we will all be affected by climate change, it has to be fought whenever it comes up. Hence my involvement in this thread.

Willful ignorance in the face of science is nothing new... humanity has struggled with it for the entire history of civilization. This is but the latest iteration of it and I have no doubt that eventually people who would rather bury their heads in the sand will be outnumbered by those who actually understand reality... and hopefully not too late.

 

[Red Ranger]

This is just the latest installment from the corporate world's manufactured doubt playbook. Big tobacco did it, after all. Eventually, it will come out that these emails were faked. After all, it's the corporate interests, not scientists, who have more to lose by going green. -- RR