"Climategate" The Day Global Warming Stood Still

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by don webb, Nov 24, 2009.

This thread is being watched by 7 users.
  1. don webb

    don webb Mm Mm Mm Barrack H Obama


    Al Gore is somewhere Howling in Psychic Pain..:crucified:


    An environmental cataclysm occurred this week. Al Gore is somewhere howling in psychic pain. Global warming skeptics and any real scientists rejoice: the fable of Global Warming aka - Climate Change aka - Impending Doom has been revealed for a scientifically manipulated fraud.

    Late last week, servers at Britain’s Climate Research Unit, a part of the University of East Anglia, were hacked and over 172 megabytes of data dumped onto the internet for public access.

    The data paints an ugly picture of scientists operating as political hacks orchestrating smear campaigns against global warming dissidents, deleting files rather than make their data publicly available, and manufacturing data to prove their case when the actual data does nothing of the sort.

    The University of East Anglia has confirmed the authenticity of the documents. With that confirmation, we see global warming for what it is — a scam perpetuated by scientists intent on gaining access to money.

    Those involved allegedly include: James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Michael Mann, famous for Mann's "Hockey Stick"; Gavin Schmidt, NASA climate modeler, and; Stephen Schneider, Stanford professor and Al Gore confidant.


  2. grab_grab_the_haddock

    grab_grab_the_haddock The Voice Of Reason Established Member

    Don't you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself posting this type of conspiracy theory hogwash?

    Do you ever feel the inclination to pause, think and apply a little sense before hitting post?

    A little research goes a long way, and if you had bothered your useless lazy ass you would have found the charges of "fraud" had been refuted before they were even made.


    No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
  3. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    Thanks grab, from reading the quote I could see it was taken out of context, to be honest I didn't feel like expending myself to prove my point when he doesn't want proof, but to live in his fairy tale world.
  4. Drew Wilson

    Drew Wilson AKA IceCube Staff Member Moderator Contributor

    I don't need articles to point me one direction or another. All I personally have to do is open a curtain and see dead forrest for endless miles around to realize that the climate is already changing. A few personal e-mails between scientists leaking onto the internet doesn't change that.
  5. don webb

    don webb Mm Mm Mm Barrack H Obama

    You liked that little phrase “Climategate” huh Grab? I thought you might.............:cool2:

    But, “refuting the facts” doesn’t make it so. Hopefully it will be a symbolic blow to next month's climate change conference, the timing couldn’t be better.

    And these folks won't do "a little research" they'll be doing a lot, there is a lot more splanin to do..:nutkick:

    Amazing sometimes how radical liberals can be. With their socialized justice for all mentality and their denial of any remote possibility they could be incorrect.

    To them if it’s “Inconvienient, Its just not the Truth!”



    What else could you expect from “purported authorities” who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results?

    Slick Willie didn’t have SEX with that woman either did he?

    There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors (or should I say Con Artists?)

    One more example that is worth mentioning quickly.

    You missed this one Grab, it must have been inconvienient

    In one email, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst:

    "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

    "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone"

    "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

    Go read Rainbow Fish again Grab........:lmao:


  6. Excrement_Cranium

    Excrement_Cranium Just Sick Established Member

    You do nothing more than expose your inability to understand science when you equate scientific methodology, peer review, and data with your bastardization of the word liberal.

    Radical? Funny finger-pointing coming from a radio-personality fringe parrot.
  7. grab_grab_the_haddock

    grab_grab_the_haddock The Voice Of Reason Established Member

    <snip irrelevant smoke blowing >

    Post it.

    He's joking you dumbass.
  8. Mels_Smileys45

    Mels_Smileys45 JabberZombie Established Member

    Scientists have always had to argue their points until it becomes blatantly obvious and no one can say other wise...well, the dumb ass jury is still out on EVOLUTION! The Earth would still be considered flat by people like Don if we were not able to travel to space and I bet he thinks that its all fake. The pics still make the Earth look like a flat pancake huh Don? You have to know God protects the Earth with magic and none of us tiny humans could ever effect anything here on Earth. Its simply TOO BIG and enormous and God perfect for anything to change it!

    Those stupid people like Stephen Hawkins don't know DICK!!! He is so stupid he can't even learn to walk. Why should anyone believe him about global warming. Hawkins and his dumb ass buddies should listen to the people Don digs up and learn some shit! These people have actually EARNED the label scientists! Watch some YOUTUBE Mr STEPHEN HAWKINS and learn some SHIT!!!

    Flat Earth is back in vogue!!!
  9. don webb

    don webb Mm Mm Mm Barrack H Obama


    If it were not mostly radical liberals pushing the “Climate Change” agenda maybe I wouldn’t be Bastardizing them?

    Also, the understanding of science has nothing to do with ”purposely hiding data, destroying information, doctoring results or scientists operating as political hacks” which is the topic of the thread.

    I would challenge you to find “any” comment I have made that I believe “humans could never effect anything here on earth.”

    But thank ya’ll so very much for enforcing my comment on the lack of radical liberals abilities...:You_Rock_Emoticon:

    Now for todays “Update on Climategate”

    Scientist in the Climategate “Cover-Up Storm” told to Quit

    The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night over leaked files - which show 4,000 documents which have allegedly been sent by scientists over the past 13 years.

    George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data and Bob Ward, a climate expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, has demanded an independent inquiry.

    More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.

    Stay Tuned Folks, the investigations are just getting started......:headbang:


  10. Excrement_Cranium

    Excrement_Cranium Just Sick Established Member

    And now you exemplify the inability to understand simple things in the English language like sentence structure, syntax, and context - but that fits exactly.

    Keep it up Don, continue bastardizing words in the English langauge in ways that only make sense in the world Fox News has created for you.

    If you are confused, read the post again: "bastardization of the word liberal.

    I know, I know... it doesn't fit your spin.

    Whatever, fuck off.
  11. don webb

    don webb Mm Mm Mm Barrack H Obama


    It's easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science. Perhaps it's time for you to be honest, and get interested in real science too, eh?

    I only deny that mankind is mostly, or solely, responsible for it, and if all these folks were really interested in real science, rather then agenda based science, they would have the same opinion.

    The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place. The impression left by the leaked correspondence is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

    Simply put, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. If their science is as robust as they claim one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place.

    With the global warming hoax, we are seeing moonbattery do to science what it has already done to art, education, journalism, and — with the ascension of characters like Obama — politics. ( A little help from over at Right Wing News)

    The appearance is that Global warming is manmade, all right, it’s made by men in lab coats who angle for Government Grants by creating false data

    And thats just :lame: as hell.............:dunno:


  12. Excrement_Cranium

    Excrement_Cranium Just Sick Established Member

    Have the data or models been refuted with science, rather than non-scientific cynicism, conspiracy, and denial?

    Then there is scientific argument. Just puff.
  13. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    That would be true, should all the data come from one source, be tested by one scientist, and be approved by one man. The scientific community checks, rechecks, and checks again all the work done to ensure its validity. Every published experiment undergoes replication by a multitude of experts to ensure that it is repeatable with the same outcome. All conclusions are weighed in against other research, some using different methodologies, others using different data set to ensure that the data for the most part is accurate within other proposals. When a scientist finds reason to doubt major research the goal is to find out where the disagreement lies, is it the research being undertaken that is wrong, or the rest of the community, if its the rest of the community, then why is it in disagreement. This isn't the same process as a public opinion poll, it doesn't work like politics, its the scientific process of finding real answers. Knowing that you are a businessman with no background of understanding of the process, and a severe narrow mindedness I don't expect you to understand. Not because its a complex system to understand, but because you lack the common sense to pull your head out from your large intestine.
  14. don webb

    don webb Mm Mm Mm Barrack H Obama

    Govormant edgemicashun wuzt reely fur mee neether wuz Hookt on Funix but that has nothing to do with common sense?

    I may not fully understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but I do know a “game-changer” when I see it. Oh, by the way, pretending these email leaks aren’t a crisis won't make it go away, they havn't even begun to satisfy their critics on this matter.........:scared1:

    Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, these climategate emails are sweeping across the internet. They’re losing their cool and uttering desperate bullshit in defense.

    Anyway for todays Update:

    The scandal just gets juicier and juicier.......:hump:

    Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit appears to have been tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is.

    Lifting up another rock we have another snake come slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit scandal.

    Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. according to files released by a CEU hacker.

    Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

    My apologies to all the others I can’t name them all but:

    While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels trying to keep the scandal under the rug and suppress the views of dissenters, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history. It just couldn't get any better for us deniers!.........:beerchug:

    Fox News, BigGovernment.com and the Canada Free Press, Obama and Liberals Nemesis, is on the Job, getting the word out, trampling all over Al Gore’s and Mitchell’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the news to “Joe Public,” Coast-to-Coast here and it’s spreading World Wide!

    Now is the time to mount massive resistance and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet, after all thats what it's all about anyway....:crucified:

    Thanks to the Internet it has empowered, the Lainstream Media no no longer gets to decide what we know about the people and organizations that effect our daily lives.

    Reaction to this is growing and the real “Train Wreck” here in the US (I don’t really care about anywhere else) is for Obama and the rest of the warmers “where it was, but now is,” confidently believed this Cap and Trade climate legislation is Burnt Toast.

    Now that “Joe Public” knows, thanks to these “Clowns at East Anglia’s CRU,” just how royally they’ve been screwed with this Global Warming Hoaxing things may "change" a bit. (no offence pooter)

    A throwback to the intro of the television series Dragnet.........:cool2:

    “Ladies and Gentlemen: “The story you are about to hear is true, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent”, the innocent in Climategate have already been thrown to the ravening wolves.

    Grab a cold one and some Popcorn and read on.

  15. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    You mean the same Tim Ball that was represented as being from the University of Winnipeg climatology department, adepartment which does not exist, in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". A documentary plagued with misquoting scientists, and falsely manipulating data to the point where the scientists interviewed sued the creator. The one who taught geology most of his life even tho he had a PH D in climatology. If you have a PH D in climatology and are teaching Geology there are two reasons for this, either it was a choice (don't actually like climatology), or he was inept in his chosen field. Just because you have a PHD doesn't mean you are good at what you do.

    Is this same Tim Ball that runs a "grassroots" non profit organization that is funded by corporations to disprove man made global warming. The one that is associated to his for profit consulting group for electric and gas companies. Its in his best interest to disprove global warming, he is making mountains of cash from it, and he is not trying to read the data, he is trying to create his outcome using the data. Either way, I don't consider Tim Ball to be a legitimate critic as he is far too biased to properly represent the issue. It would be like asking Clinton if he had sexual relations in the white house.
  16. grab_grab_the_haddock

    grab_grab_the_haddock The Voice Of Reason Established Member

    Since you seem to be on an orgy of copy n paste, maybe you can copy and paste some of that "damning evidence" you claimed you had. Look forward to it.
  17. don webb

    don webb Mm Mm Mm Barrack H Obama

    Having not seen the film I cannot comment on your claim, I also failed to find any reference to it in your link?

    If he were as you’ve stated, and he “was represented “ and he himself did not make this claim, I don’t see how it could affect “his” credibility, but only that of the one making the statement?

    In searching I found many Media references to him as being a professor of climatology “at” the University though. If you stretch it I suppose that could be construed as such?

    If your reeeeely that interested you can contact him here to discuss it if you’d like.

    [email protected]

    Plagued with misquoting scientists, Sued, sounds serious?..:eek:mfg:

    It was “criticized” and generated a whopping 265 complaints with the British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications Ofcom. Is a complaint a Suit over in the UK? Is OfCom the Royal Court?

    Hell, I’ve received more critisism here on ZP and we only have ½ Million memebers........:shocked:

    WOW, we reeeeely need to get to work on a VACCINE for that plague, maybe Obama could help out.

    One of those “complaints” 176 pages worth was co-authored by a group of Environmental Scientists (the same warmers whom are now under scrutiny for falsely manipulating data they accuse this film of doing.)

    The film was produced by Martin Durkin, who has been described as “the scourge of the greens” and “one of the environmentalists” favorite hate figures.

    Who’d a thunk it, warmers, attacking deniers?.... :pat:

    Anyways, OfCom found the programme was not found to have misled viewers!

    What Ofcom's did find was very limited and unlike Mr. Global Warming Inventor himself over the criticism of his documentary plagued with misquoting scientists, and falsely manipulated data, the production company accepted some of the criticism, they corrected the errors and will “not be santioned in any way.”

    OfCom said that there were some things that weren't right, but ultimately it has exonerated us, said Hamish Mykura who commissioned the film.

    It has scrutinized the documentary in great detail over 16 months. Any film scrutinized for that long would have revealed some factual inaccuracies, but crucially, it's said that what it found was not of a significant magnitude to materially mislead the viewer, he added.

    I’ve got no idea why he would make this change your "opinion" could be true but I could find no references to the matter.

    Again, you can contact him yourself here if you’d like, and find out the truth if you're that interested.?

    [email protected]

    There's nothing wrong with industry funding or private donors to their causes? If not for Grants and Donations many of these Left Wing Hacks teaching at the Universities would be looking for a JOB along with their Scientist buddies.

    Getting 100’s of Million$ from those within the Left Wing Governments is about the same?

    YOU consider "him" Biased? What a Kicker that is.....:lmao:

  18. don webb

    don webb Mm Mm Mm Barrack H Obama


    "Climategate" James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term.

    Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than Nine Million Times....:shrug:

    If you need further assistance Grab let me know....:puke:

    Now Todays Climategate Update:

    CRU Agrees To Publish All The Data.

    That which they haven’t Thrown Away or Destroyed at least..:shrug:

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

    Now in a statement the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

  19. mountain_rage

    mountain_rage Zeropaids nipple Staff Member Moderator

    Fair enough, I really did not feel like doing the leg work, but a quick google search revealed that my belief was not unfounded.

  20. carpefile

    carpefile Chronic Established Member

    That is indeed how the process should work. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way when there is collusion to manipulate or hide data and a concerted to effort to block peer review by anyone who disagrees.
    Its not really consensus at all if you have blocked dissenting views from being voiced to reach it.

    You don't need to have any special skill at analyzing data or interpreting contextual applicability to see in these emails where this has occurred. It's plainly written, the CRU themselves have acknowledged the veracity of the emails as genuine.

    Even if all their data is true (which is questionable at best), the tactics they are using to quell any opposing view point, corrupting the scientific process, should by itself be cause for concern and investigation.

Share This Page