It's been hacked, baby. Snake oil science at its best.
Go close this thread, mod!
It's a conspiracy.
Science goons are on their way to your house, right now.
Prepare yourself for re-education.
Look at the other thread. People from realclimate.org are frequenting 4-ch as early as March, 2007. LOL
You don't have to be "from realclimate.org" to object to lies and political agitprop masquerading as objective scientific truth.
>>4
You can't be from there because they are the ones disseminating lies and all.
>>5
is using argumentum ad lapidem. He is also a panda.
>>6
Do you come to 4-ch looking for proofs? LOL
Go below and present your argument there.
http://camirror.wordpress.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
>>7
Do I hear a "zOMG torrent pl0x?"
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206
http://www.mininova.org/tor/3168330
http://ftp.tomcity.ru/incoming/free/FOI2009.zip
Read and see for yourself. Fifteen years of emails between the people who created the "global warming" meme. Fifteen years of conspiracy, collusion, and "hiding the decline," lies and agitprop sold to the press as absolute uncontested objective scientific fact, then spoonfed to the public by the leftist newsmedia as truth.
No wonder they won't publish their data or their methodology. No wonder Climate Audit had to resort to Freedom of Information Act requests.
> Fifteen years of emails between the people who created the "global warming" meme.
> people who created the "global warming" meme.
> the "global warming" meme
> meme
As you're probably not a Richard Dawkins groupie, I'll give standard troll response number two:
Go back to 4chan.
>>9
no u.
The distinguishing characteristics of the Left have always been in-group morality, soulless mendacity, and an astonishing Will to Power.
"Fake but accurate" is their mantra, for some values of "accurate" that the other people in the newsroom accept.
As for "global warming" in particular:
"...we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest..." --Steven Schneider of the so-called "National Center for Atmospheric Research," which is a political lobbying organziation that does no actual research, being unusually honest and candid
It's all about power, and they are cheerfully willing to destroy Western Civilization in order to obtain it. Truth? What's that? Are you some RIGHT-WING REACTIONARY NAZI RACIST, or something, talking about "truth" and questioning St. Nader and St. Gore? BURN THE WITCH!
> the Left
This is where I stopped reading.
>>11
Too many big words for you? Too much objective truth in one place?
ID:CE6qdUHR
Do your work somewhere else.
YouTube and blogs are full of climategate now. You can do much more somewhere else.
No, it's your implicit assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be stupid or lying which makes reading your rants or communicating with with you in any way, shape or form outside of abject ridicule an intolerable effort.
Also,
> objective
LOL
>>14
From the notoriously left-wing Washington Post, which can no longer hold its nose and pretend to ignore the stink:
.....
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science."I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. . . .Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said......
There once was a guy named Gustav Bergmann, who taught Philosophy of Science at the University of Iowa. He said:
"If you can't put an experiment into a letter to a competent person, so that your correspondent can repeat the experiment and get the same results, it isn't science. Science isn't a method of finding proof and discovering truth. It is a method for falsifying hypotheses, ruling out falsehood; what's left is accepted as truth because it's all we have."
But the global-warming true-believers don't want to share their data for some reason, they don't want anyone to see what's going on in the sausage factory they're running. And now the whole world sees a tiny little fraction of what they're hiding. A fraction, because:
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
The emails and data made public are bad enough. I wonder what was in the ones that got deleted.
From the London Sunday Times:
"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.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation...
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: 'We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.'"
Trust us. It really did show the warming trend before we cooked it. Really it did. Don't you believe us?
Real scientists welcome scrutiny. Real scientists publish their findings. And in real scientific fields, a real peer review process weeds out those who engage in this kind of behavior.
I'm pretty disillusioned with both sides of this debate at the moment, but I'm puzzled why nobody has produced much science- empirical or not- casting doubt on global warming. There's certainly many industries and governments that would benefit from that position, so you'd think if it could so easily be spun one way or the other, they would fund somebody to go out to do it.
Flipped around: If global warming advocacy is a racket, who's profiting from it? A bunch of green technology startups and carbon offset salespeople seem unlikely partners in a conspiracy, especially since most of them didn't exist when global warming started being played up as a problem.
>>18
There's no science here at all. Scientists keep notes and publicise and share their data, they don't destroy it in response to FOIA requests.
What we have here is religion masquerading as science, just like the Christers with their "intelligent design" silliness.
>>17
Who's profiting from it? The State. It gives ideological justification to expand the power of the State into all aspects of our daily lives. Would you like to purchase some "carbon credits" in exchange for a warm shower this morning? STEP AWAY FROM THE HOT WATER FAUCET WITH YOUR HANDS UP. We're from the government, and we're here to help ourselves to you.
I wasn't aware the government sold carbon offset credits to consumers. I was under the impression this was a free market incentive for companies to lower their carbon footprint, where one green company can profit by selling these credits to others. And also that the cost of my warm showers is covered by the expenses involved with my hot water heater and utility bills.
>>21
Wait a few years for the "free market" to put those burdens more directly on you. And who knows what the next iteration of the concept will hold, once this precedent has been set?
There is also the observation that another group has profited greatly from the propagation of this meme already: "climate scientists," who keep the grant money gravy train chugging along by producing the "right" answers to justify further "research."
You are mildly paranoid and selectively filter out facts to suit your pre-existing worldview of a scary, loosely-clustered political cabal ["The Left"] that's constantly scheming new ways to seize money and power. A chemical process in your brain rewards you whenever you alter reality to validate your beliefs.
>>23
You are mildly paranoid and selectively filter out facts to suit
your pre-existing worldview of a scary, loosely-clustered political cabal ("Climate Change Deniers") that's constantly scheming new ways to seize money and power.
And you're a big dumb poopyhead. And you have a smelly butt.
See, I can psychoanalyze people over the Intertubes too. Isn't it fun?
Why would The State fabricate this global warming nonsense as justification to expand their power when they could just stage another terrorist attack?
Oh wait, you probably think they just did.
We really don't know what will happen as a result of climate change honestly the climate has been warming since the last ice age and species have adapted just fine. Sure we have advanced climate models and simulations but how valid are they really. I was looking at them the other day and all the areas of significant rainfall and temperature changes were where there were very few sensors and a lack of historical data i.e. the middle of the ocean and were no one lived. Also all temperature readings have been increasing a lot recently due to urbanization and development around weather stations a local not global effect. I don't get what the deal is really I understand energy efficiency and oil independence but halting and slowing carbon emissions worldwide is impossible. lol It’s hilarious and frustrating to see people get all worked up about it. I don't get it and I'm majoring in meteorology. Sure the earth is warming but how much who knows. Meteorology data is not flawless and you know what even if it was warming a lot what of it? Seriously I don’t get it.
>>25
Don't you frikkin forget Alamo! Otherwise WTC7 will fall on you at a free-fall spped.
Don't let the Republic fall. Come aboard with me on USS Maine!
Let's Blow up those Viet-Cons at the Bay of Pigs.
> It’s hilarious and frustrating to see people get all worked up about it.
Considering the repercussions if the scientists are right, what do you expect?
The problem here is your risk assessment is completely broken. If you're stuck at night in Africa and hear something big moving nearby, your first reaction isn't to pretend it can't be a lion, especially if a group of natives who know the land think that it probably is. Climbing that tree may take some effort, but it sure beats the possibility of being eaten alive.
Unfortunately, we don't have two planets to do a controlled experiment with just to be sure, just like you only have one life to test whether that's actually a lion or not.
Why do I even have to explain something so obvious?
Because its definitly not that obvious its not like all the natives are agreeing some of them are from Australia and are just telling everyone they are natives, convincing everyone to climb the tree is impossible, and the natives really don't have a complete view of whats going on its like thier ears are synthetic robot ears calibrated in some far away factory. Plus If everyone doesn't climb that tree we will all die anyway so whats the point. Plus I personally haven't heard anything at all which drection was it from? How long ago did you hear it? Was it the sound of branches snapping or a heavy thud?
> its not like all the natives are agreeing
Please provide some evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists don't agree with AGW.
> If everyone doesn't climb that tree we will all die anyway so whats the point
Hooray for surrendermonkey! Have a banana.
I am not saying that the earth is not warming it is, To what degree is debatable and there really is no definitive answer on what will happen as a result thats what I meant. All we have are comuputer models. So fine lets do this. So the glaciers are melting they have been melting since the last ice age, The poles are shrinking ok but as the climate warms precipitation will increase in these areas so they will not dissapear entirely. Apparenty there will be fewer hurricanes according to my meteorology professor refrencing a recent study granted they have a chance of being stronger with the increase in ocean temperatures. What do you want to do there are three options: moderate our carbon emissions ok but china produses more than anyone and they aren't ever going to change, are you going to spend astronomical sums on putting reflective partices in orbit or in the high atmosphere why don't we I mean its not like we'll create another ice age thats silly, or do we adapt as it happens. None of these options are good the world economy couldn't handle it and like I said we do not know what will happen for sure no climate scientist will say that. I agree that we should rely less on oil but I'm really sick of global warming/climate change debate. Climate change is real the earth is warming but don't you dare fucking tell me the world will end if we do nothing about it right now.
> I agree that we should rely less on oil but I'm really sick of global warming/climate change debate.
Except that we must debate this. You can't say to physics later on, "o shi, time out, brb!" The sooner we do something to moderate out likely impact on the environment, the less costly it is for our descendants.
Now, you may think it unlikely we'll do anything until the price we'll pay is much higher -- and I agree with that -- but that's a separate issue. Stuffing our head in the sand is the wrong thing to do; that only increases the disruption later on.
> don't you dare fucking tell me the world will end if we do nothing about it right now.
No, but the longer we take to respond, the more it'll hurt. The first step to responding is discussion and awareness.
Both of those points are valid and I actually agree but the thing is the discussion and awareness that is put out to the masses is mostly complete nonsense bullshit that pisses me off. What is a scientific issue has turned into an obnoxious political issue polarizing people and hiding the truth. Movies and TV shows exaggerate the predictions and make numerous scientific errors in favor of better ratings. The weather channel mentions it constantly and likes to pull the whole change people by fear thing by playing dramatic reenactments of people getting their homes eaten by tornadoes. They are turning it into entertainment. Not only that but it’s like some of the people who put out this info seem like paranoid crazy people I remember one National Geographic issue where every single article mentioned climate change and one was about mummies seriously. I just for once want people with intelligence to get the information out instead of people like Al Gore and people who exaggerate the truth. That’s why I'm sick of it.
oh by the way guyz:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2010) — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.
The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested.