Global Warming

[stonerblue]

Global Warming is it a lie or is it real?
Or is it a natural cycle and not caused by humans at all.....?

which aspect?

 

[twinkletoes]

That is absolutely without foundation. The one thing that Monbiot deals in is facts.

.

You should try reading his polar opposite too for a more balanced view. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

You read this
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... ate-change</a>

 

[Gelsons Dad]

You should try reading his polar opposite too for a more balanced view. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

You read this
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... ate-change</a>

Less of the hostility please!

I have read the article. I find this interesting:

The recent hacking of the servers of the University of East Anglia can only be understood within this landscape of competing appeals to public trust. The denial industry (and hordes of climate nerds) has trawled through these emails and found sentences which, when removed from context, support their storyline that climate science is being deliberately distorted and exaggerated for a mixed bag of self-interested and politicised ends.

But you could find anything in here. I looked and found lots of references to lunch and fun, 94 to hate, 31 to love. Generally, though, the emails are extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on realclimate.org, the emails contain "no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."

Which is rather naferious whereas we find direct quotes to the contrary on the other side of the argument:

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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

and

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

and

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

The quotes which have not been denied seem to show evidence to falsify data. No one said the leaked(stolen) documents suggested any of the extreme conspiracy theories had been proved. I don't think any sane person would expect this to be the case, but they do clearly show that we are not being told the truth by the pro anthropogenic warming campaigners.

 

[twinkletoes]

You read this
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... ate-change</a>

Less of the hostility please!

I have read the article. I find this interesting:

The recent hacking of the servers of the University of East Anglia can only be understood within this landscape of competing appeals to public trust. The denial industry (and hordes of climate nerds) has trawled through these emails and found sentences which, when removed from context, support their storyline that climate science is being deliberately distorted and exaggerated for a mixed bag of self-interested and politicised ends.

But you could find anything in here. I looked and found lots of references to lunch and fun, 94 to hate, 31 to love. Generally, though, the emails are extremely focused, technical, and, dare I say it, really dull. As noted on realclimate.org, the emails contain "no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."

Which is rather naferious whereas we find direct quotes to the contrary on the other side of the argument:

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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

and

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

and

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

The quotes which have not been denied seem to show evidence to falsify data. No one said the leaked(stolen) documents suggested any of the extreme conspiracy theories had been proved. I don't think any sane person would expect this to be the case, but they do clearly show that we are not being told the truth by the pro anthropogenic warming campaigners.

You are doing exactly what the article is about!

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I beg to differ;

The article claims that GW deniers are pulling quotes out of context and then lamely uses "lunch" "fun" and "hate" to try and devalue the actual quotes.

Tell me how this:

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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

can in any way be taken out of context? It is quite clear that data was manipulated to hide the truth. This is clear evidence of falsifying data and has not been denied.

 

[buzzer1]

I beg to differ;

The article claims that GW deniers are pulling quotes out of context and then lamely uses "lunch" "fun" and "hate" to try and devalue the actual quotes.

Tell me how this:

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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

can in any way be taken out of context? It is quite clear that data was manipulated to hide the truth. This is clear evidence of falsifying data and has not been denied.

Just a quick question Gelse, if the govt./scientists etc can falsify this sort of evidence, then surely all sorts of bullshit can be manipulated, about anything?

 

[twinkletoes]

I beg to differ;

The article claims that GW deniers are pulling quotes out of context and then lamely uses "lunch" "fun" and "hate" to try and devalue the actual quotes.

Tell me how this:

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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

can in any way be taken out of context? It is quite clear that data was manipulated to hide the truth. This is clear evidence of falsifying data and has not been denied.

Why can't this be taken out of context? Perhaps he is referring to a mistake that he made that is similar to one that Keith made.

 

[smudgedj]

Ok you can pull quotes out of the emails and they can be taken out of context, however not just the emails were released but the climate change programme code, complete with the programmers notes which are placed within the code as a reminder/help. These aren't taken out of contest and they clearly show that the data was 'fudged' or 'artificially adjusted' as the programmer puts it.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/...-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

 

[without a dream]

I beg to differ;

The article claims that GW deniers are pulling quotes out of context and then lamely uses "lunch" "fun" and "hate" to try and devalue the actual quotes.

Tell me how this:



can in any way be taken out of context? It is quite clear that data was manipulated to hide the truth. This is clear evidence of falsifying data and has not been denied.

Why can't this be taken out of context? Perhaps he is referring to a mistake that he made that is similar to one that Keith made.

Lol yeah they may have made innocent mistakes which made a decline which they needed to hide......................

 

[Gelsons Dad]

I beg to differ;

The article claims that GW deniers are pulling quotes out of context and then lamely uses "lunch" "fun" and "hate" to try and devalue the actual quotes.

Tell me how this:



can in any way be taken out of context? It is quite clear that data was manipulated to hide the truth. This is clear evidence of falsifying data and has not been denied.

Why can't this be taken out of context? Perhaps he is referring to a mistake that he made that is similar to one that Keith made.

Because this refers to a picture used to promote the cause.

Green is the actual data

Purple is the manipulated data