PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Meltdown: Climategate!


ToxicVomit
11-23-2009, 10:07 AM
Global Warming Meltdown: Climategate!


By Alan Caruba

For those of us “skeptics” and “deniers” who have been jumping up and down, pointing at the Sun, and saying, “See, it’s the Sun that determines how warm or cool the Earth is. See it? Up there in the sky?” The truth about some of the scientists behind the global warming hoax has finally arrived.

The hoax has its roots in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an instrument of the United Nations Environmental Program, for whom global warming was the open sesame to achieving a one-world-government by scaring nations into signing a treaty that would control their use of energy, the means of producing it, and require vast billions to be sent to less developed nations in exchange for “emitting” greenhouse gases.

Energy is called “the master resource” because, if you have lots of it, you can call your own shots. If you don’t, you are condemned to live in the dark and keeping people in the dark about the global warming hoax was essential.

For years the IPCC has been controlled by a handful of the worst liars in the world, utterly devoted to taking actual climate data and twisting it to confirm the assertion that the Earth was not only warming dramatically, but that humanity was in peril of rising oceans, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, more hurricanes, the die-off of countless animal species, and every other calamity that could possibly be attributed to “global warming”, including acne.

So, around November 20, when some enterprising individual hacked into the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), making off with thousands of emails and documents that demonstrate the level of collusion and deception being practiced by its scientists.

It’s a climate hoax expose that some are calling the revelations a “little blue dress” while others are comparing it to the Pentagon Papers. It has also been dubbed “climategate.”

As James Delingpole wrote in the Telegraph, one of England’s leading newspapers, “Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the 61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read.

The conspirators had a visceral hatred for scientists who challenged their phony statistics and climate data, but they also agonized over the difficulties of hiding a long established climate cycle such as the Medieval Warm Period. At one point it was left out of a graph that famously became known as “the hockey stick” because it depicted a ludicrous sudden rise in warming, ignoring the previous natural cycle.

At the heart of the revelations were the intense efforts to ensure that no legitimate scientist, particularly those dissenting from the various IPCC reports, would be allowed to participate in the peer review process. Peer review is an essential element in science as it permits other scientists to examine and test the data being put forth to substantiate a new interpretation or discovery.

The IPCC reports were the basis by which popular media such as National Geographic, Time and Newsweek magazines could spread the lies about a dramatic “global warming”, passing them off to an unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate general public. At the same time, the lies were integrated them into school curriculums and maintained by Hollywood celebrities, politicians and others, duped or deliberately ignorant.

To this day, otherwise legitimate news media outlets continue to trumpet and repeat absolute nonsense about “global warming” like brain-dead parrots.

Now that Hadley CRU and its conspirators have been exposed, there truly is no need to hold a December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen; one in which nations would be required to put limits on “greenhouse gas emissions” even though such gases, primarily carbon dioxide, have nothing to do with altering the Earth’s climate.

And that is why you are going to hear more about “climate change” and far less about “global warming.” Hidden in such discussions, intended to justify legislation and regulation, is that the Earth’s climate has always and will always change.

It is, for example, shameful and deceitful for the EPA to claim carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that should be regulated. The same applies to “cap-and-trade” legislation with the same purpose.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on studies of global warming and poured into agencies such as NASA that have lent credence to the global warming hoax.

“The U.S. taxpayer has much exposure here in the joint projects and collaborations which operated in reliance upon what the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was doing,” says Christopher C. Horner, a longtime global warming skeptic. “There are U.S. taxpayer-funded offices and individuals involved in the machinations addressed in the emails, and in the emails themselves.”

Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, said that the initial revelations “give the appearance of a conspiracy to defraud, by parties working in taxpayer funded agencies collaborating on ways to misrepresent material on which an awful lot of taxpayer money rides.”

The climate, defined as long term trends, and the weather has nothing whatever to do with human activity and suggesting it does reveals the depth of contempt that people like Al Gore and his ilk have for humanity and those fleeced by purchasing “carbon credits” or paying more for electricity when their utility does.

The East Anglia CRU charlatans have been exposed. Most certainly, the United Nations IPCC should be disbanded in disgrace. It belongs in a museum of hoaxes right beside the Piltdown Man and the Loch Ness Monster.

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-warming-meltdown-climategate.html

FilmGal
11-23-2009, 11:02 AM
I read through a lot of the information on the hacked e-mails from the research center. The only conclusion I can draw from reading through it is

1. the one researcher is a bit of a jerk
2. they get easily frustrated when data doesn't neatly fit into theoretical models
3. they don't like global warming deniers

But there's no evidence of any world wide conspiracy to defraud anyone. In fact, I could do what the hacker did, steal 10 yrs. worth of anyone's e-mails, take sentences out of context and prove just about any conspiracy I wanted.

The raw data still shows that

1. CO2 levels are rising
2. the earth is getting warmer
3. there is strong correlation between CO2 levels and average global temperatures
4. the source of the rising CO2 levels is the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation

In my opinion, this is the beginning of a disturbing trend - conservative and liberatians resorting to criminal acts and vigilantism to "prove" their pet theories and vilify progressives, liberals and moderates.

ToxicVomit
11-23-2009, 11:53 AM
I read through a lot of the information on the hacked e-mails from the research center. The only conclusion I can draw from reading through it is

1. the one researcher is a bit of a jerk
2. they get easily frustrated when data doesn't neatly fit into theoretical models
3. they don't like global warming deniers

But there's no evidence of any world wide conspiracy to defraud anyone. In fact, I could do what the hacker did, steal 10 yrs. worth of anyone's e-mails, take sentences out of context and prove just about any conspiracy I wanted.

The raw data still shows that

1. CO2 levels are rising
2. the earth is getting warmer
3. there is strong correlation between CO2 levels and average global temperatures
4. the source of the rising CO2 levels is the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation

In my opinion, this is the beginning of a disturbing trend - conservative and liberatians resorting to criminal acts and vigilantism to "prove" their pet theories and vilify progressives, liberals and moderates.


The "raw" data that you speak of is from government sponsored sites, which includes NASA, so what do you expect? They surely wouldn't have any agenda........

FilmGal
11-23-2009, 12:49 PM
The "raw" data that you speak of is from government sponsored sites, which includes NASA, so what do you expect? They surely wouldn't have any agenda........

Virtually all science is published in journal and is subject to peer review. There was a show on the Discovery Science channel a couple of weeks about a physicist who was the boy genuis of the (I think) superconductor community - every research project he did was successful and he always got wonderful results. This raised the curiousity of other researchers in the field who had trouble duplicating his results, so they poured over all his data and charts and found out that he was making up data. Huge scandal ensued and he lost his job at Bell Labs.

Climate research is subjected to the same kind of scrutiny other climate researchers. Global warming deniers usually aren't climate researchers - they're lay people, politicians, and economists. They don't pour over published research or do their own independent investigations. Instead, they launch attacks based on specious reasoning (my favorite is that even if global warming is real, water levels won't rise because ice floats - huh? how does that prove there's some huge conspiracy?) attempt to shout down researchers and apparently no engage in illegal activies to "prove" there's a conspiracy.

One of the bits of "proof" I read in the stolen e-mails was a line from one of the researchers who said something like "gee, I guess sunspots really do have an effect on weather patterns". The news source (and I use the term very loosely) said "Aha! This proves there's a global conspiracy!" How do you draw the global warming conspiracy conclusion from private e-mail saying "I guess sunspots really do have an effect on weather patterns"?

Now there's probably going to be some people hacking into everything, taking sentences completely out of context and shouting from the rooftops "Conspiracy! This proves it! Darwin made everything up! The sun goes around the earth! The earth is actually flat! Being 50 lbs. over weight is actually good for you!"

I'm going to hack into Glenn Beck's e-mail account and "prove" that he's the head of a conspiracy to overthrow the US government. I'm going to hack into Ron Paul's e-mail account and "prove" he's a pedophile. I'm going to hack into ToxicVomit's account and "prove" he was hired by the president of ExxonMobil as an agent of disinformation. All I have to do is get a bunch of out of context quotes, scream CONSPIRACY! at the top of my lungs, and all three of them will be busy spending the next year saying "I am not a..." to anyone who will listen to them.

ToxicVomit
11-23-2009, 12:51 PM
Virtually all science is published in journal and is subject to peer review. There was a show on the Discovery Science channel a couple of weeks about a physicist who was the boy genuis of the (I think) superconductor community - every research project he did was successful and he always got wonderful results. This raised the curiousity of other researchers in the field who had trouble duplicating his results, so they poured over all his data and charts and found out that he was making up data. Huge scandal ensued and he lost his job at Bell Labs.

Climate research is subjected to the same kind of scrutiny other climate researchers. Global warming deniers usually aren't climate researchers - they're lay people, politicians, and economists. They don't pour over published research or do their own independent investigations. Instead, they launch attacks based on specious reasoning (my favorite is that even if global warming is real, water levels won't rise because ice floats - huh? how does that prove there's some huge conspiracy?) attempt to shout down researchers and apparently no engage in illegal activies to "prove" there's a conspiracy.

One of the bits of "proof" I read in the stolen e-mails was a line from one of the researchers who said something like "gee, I guess sunspots really do have an effect on weather patterns". The news source (and I use the term very loosely) said "Aha! This proves there's a global conspiracy!" How do you draw the global warming conspiracy conclusion from private e-mail saying "I guess sunspots really do have an effect on weather patterns"?

Now there's probably going to be some people hacking into everything, taking sentences completely out of context and shouting from the rooftops "Conspiracy! This proves it! Darwin made everything up! The sun goes around the earth! The earth is actually flat! Being 50 lbs. over weight is actually good for you!"

I'm going to hack into Glenn Beck's e-mail account and "prove" that he's the head of a conspiracy to overthrow the US government. I'm going to hack into Ron Paul's e-mail account and "prove" he's a pedophile. I'm going to hack into ToxicVomit's account and "prove" he was hired by the president of ExxonMobil as an agent of disinformation. All I have to do is get a bunch of out of context quotes, scream CONSPIRACY! at the top of my lungs, and all three of them will be busy spending the next year saying "I am not a..." to anyone who will listen to them.

And who dictates to peer-reviewed accepted data??????

FilmGal
11-23-2009, 01:08 PM
And who dictates to peer-reviewed accepted data??????

I don't quite understand your question. Articles are submitted to scientific journals which review the data, charts, methodologies, etc. and then decide whether to publish the article. After the article is published, then other researchers read the articles, take whatever information they can from them, then conduct their own research. If their research contradicts already published research, then they and/or other researchers conduct more research to determine why there's a discrepancy. If they can't determine what's causing the discrepancy, they'll start reviewing the raw data to look for errors, mistakes, omissions, sample bias, etc. If there's a continuing pattern of the same kinds of errors, mistakes, omissions, sample bias, etc., then that's a pretty good indication of scientific fraud.

For global warming to be a conspiracy, you'd have to prove that either 1. all climate researchers are in on it or 2. they're all incompetent beyond belief and make up their data.

The simple fact is that different researcher in different countries working for different agencies looking at different sets of data have all reached very similar conclusions.

ToxicVomit
11-23-2009, 01:20 PM
I don't quite understand your question. Articles are submitted to scientific journals which review the data, charts, methodologies, etc. and then decide whether to publish the article. After the article is published, then other researchers read the articles, take whatever information they can from them, then conduct their own research. If their research contradicts already published research, then they and/or other researchers conduct more research to determine why there's a discrepancy. If they can't determine what's causing the discrepancy, they'll start reviewing the raw data to look for errors, mistakes, omissions, sample bias, etc. If there's a continuing pattern of the same kinds of errors, mistakes, omissions, sample bias, etc., then that's a pretty good indication of scientific fraud.

For global warming to be a conspiracy, you'd have to prove that either 1. all climate researchers are in on it or 2. they're all incompetent beyond belief and make up their data.

The simple fact is that different researcher in different countries working for different agencies looking at different sets of data have all reached very similar conclusions.

That is completely untrue - let me get to this later.........I have a session coming in!

FilmGal
11-23-2009, 01:54 PM
OK, I'll wait - it's not like I've got anything more important to do today than argue over global warming on the internet. <sigh>

ToxicVomit
11-23-2009, 03:05 PM
OK, I'll wait - it's not like I've got anything more important to do today than argue over global warming on the internet. <sigh>

LOL......you are now fulfilling that!!!

rocketsandguns
11-23-2009, 05:21 PM
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd109/Jadwins/Macros/notawinner.jpg

sr113
11-23-2009, 08:26 PM
Damn global warming hoaxers defrauding me out of the 3 minutes of my life it took to read this thread.

ToxicVomit
11-24-2009, 05:10 AM
Climategate: Scientists Would Rather Change Facts Than Their Theories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt45fj9xcVc&feature=player_embedded