Hackers uncover more corruption with Global Warming

Budke · **Posted:** Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:40 pm

Tokyojoe wrote:

This warming is all leading to Dec 21, 2012. The alignment of the galaxy. I still want to know how the Mayans could have figured that out since it only happens about every 26,000 years. They did not have telescopes to study the stars better. Well, that's another story.

My past 3 science teachers did talk about how every 25k years or so the earth is supposed to be knocked off its axis causing massive global climate change.......

Boiler · **Posted:** Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:55 pm

Budke wrote:

Tokyojoe wrote:

This warming is all leading to Dec 21, 2012. The alignment of the galaxy. I still want to know how the Mayans could have figured that out since it only happens about every 26,000 years. They did not have telescopes to study the stars better. Well, that's another story.

My past 3 science teachers did talk about how every 25k years or so the earth is supposed to be knocked off its axis causing massive global climate change.......

Cool! So now all you southern guys that brag about the weather :roll:

can get the snow and us northerners will be in the new tropics! My house could be in a prime vacation area...

linewarbr · **Posted:** Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:23 pm

Boiler wrote:

What I don't get is why people are so adamant that it is not real. There should be a degree of uncertainty on the subject in any clear headed persons mind. I'm not 100% sure of anything. That said I think the safe bet is to "tread lightly" in this world, and do what we can to pass it on to the next generation in a condition at least as good as when we found it.

I take the same attitude, except on the flip side. I don't understand why people are so adamant that it IS for real. It really chaps my you-know-what when I hear it on the radio (I listen to NPR constantly) and see it in the news media presented as though it is fact. Just. . . fact, as if to think otherwise is nonsensical.

The reality is that there is no way to gather enough empirical evidence to make such a massive conclusion. Like evolution, it is impossible to apply the scientific method because of the lack of historical data to measure against - we've only been keeping standardized weather records for a little over 100 years. Compared against the age of the planet, that is too small of a percentage to extrapolate from. Therefore, it is a theory, nothing more; until time travel is invented, it will remain a theory.

That's not to say that we should not care about the environment at all, that is to say. . . I refuse to put on any tin foil hat.

MOSFET · **Joined:** Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:40 pm **Posts:** 295

Linewarbr - Your problem is that you can think for yourself and have common sense. Others just like to demean and ridicule people with such afflictions.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:26 pm

...since ancient times. Their records show the cycle between warm up and cool down cycles are every 1500 years. True they did not have modern thermometers, but the did record environmental conditions. Ice core evidence samples concur with the Chinese records. Since the Chinese who were keeping records and the Ice core samples have no agenda, and had no reason to falsify data, their data can be trusted more. Hackers uncovered countless emails and other documents that show the deliberate falsification of records to persue an agenda.
Let the chips fall and the evidence come out for all of use to see.

Should we practice good environmental stewertship and advance our technology to make our environment better.

Of course we should, but not under the eye of a bureaucrat.

ekj · **Joined:** Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 100

In the '70s, scientists were screaming Global Cooling. Only this time, there are more politicians than scientists doing the screaming.

jeepskate · **Posted:** Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:50 pm

So Linewarbr, I'm really trying to understand here, not criticize. Not picking on you, because there seem to be a lot of people who feel the way you do, but hoping you can help me understand your point of view. When you say "I don't understand why people are so adamant that it IS for real," what is the "it" you're talking about?

Global warming in and of itself is not a theory. It is a fact. There are theories for what causes it and how much of an effect humans are having on it relative to the earth's natural climatic cycles. But there's no doubt that the planet is getting warmer. Polar icecaps melting, glaciers shrinking. You don't need to go back more than 50 or 75 years and in some cases even less time, to see dramatic evidence of that in photographs. I only know of one thing that melts ice, and that's heat.

Is it just a question for you of whether the global warming that we're currently seeing is human-caused or part of some larger natural cycle? Or do you really question whether the earth is warmer now than it was decades ago?

EDIT: Here's one of the photos I'm talking about, from the USGS:

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:08 pm

jeepskate wrote:

So Linewarbr, I'm really trying to understand here, not criticize. Not picking on you, because there seem to be a lot of people who feel the way you do, but hoping you can help me understand your point of view. When you say "I don't understand why people are so adamant that it IS for real," what is the "it" you're talking about?

Global warming in and of itself is not a theory. It is a fact. There are theories for what causes it and how much of an effect humans are having on it relative to the earth's natural climatic cycles. But there's no doubt that the planet is getting warmer. Polar icecaps melting, glaciers shrinking. You don't need to go back more than 50 or 75 years and in some cases even less time, to see dramatic evidence of that in photographs. I only know of one thing that melts ice, and that's heat.

Is it just a question for you of whether the global warming that we're currently seeing is human-caused or part of some larger natural cycle? Or do you really question whether the earth is warmer now than it was decades ago?

EDIT: Here's one of the photos I'm talking about, from the USGS:

jeepskate · **Posted:** Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:43 am

I don't personally experience any hysteria, over global warming or anything else. I'm also not going to read all of those links. But the photo I posted, from a reputable source, not some website formed for the sole purpose of promoting one view, shows a difference over 65 years. Pretty clear which way that's going. I looked at one those links and it's full of stuff like this: "The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified." Short-term weather fluctuations don't mean much.

MidnightLiberty · **Joined:** Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:42 pm **Posts:** 270

I think it is quite arrogant of mankind to think that we can have affect the climate of the entire planet, unless we use nuclear explosions. I have no doubt that there is nothing humanity can do to stop a climate temperature change on a global level. Then there is the whole "evil" carbon dioxide issue. Remember CO2 plus photosynthesis equals Oxygen. Oxygen plus respiration equals CO2.

corwyyn · **Posted:** Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:48 pm

oddball · **Posted:** Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:47 pm

corwyyn wrote:

I got beer in the cooler if you get thirsty.

tomsjeep · **Posted:** Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:12 pm

I find it disturbing that, presuming global warming is real (showing me pics of a glacier is not helpful, sorry) and documentable, the 'scientists' involved felt the need to delete the original data used to make their calculations:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece
so that other scientists can no longer doublecheck their figures.

I have tracked instances in the past where Artic ice pack was shown to be thinning in reports quoted from the Univ. of Alaska... when in fact the U of A reports showed the exact opposite, and the university's scientists stated they had never been contacted by the climate change chicken littles (my phrase) concerning their data.

A major premise in this whole warming thing is how bad it is... when the reports purposely ignore the Medieval Warming Period, a time often considered one of the easiest for mankind... the Vikings sailed to North America, established farms in Greenland, and lived for centuries. The fact that the end of the last "little ice age" has happened and the glaciers from that period are melting doesn't particularly concern me. What is of concern is blatant attempts to manipulate the facts and mislead the public so that a segment of society can turn a big profit selling scam carbon credits.

Far from facing warming, we seem to be facing a cooling period.

linewarbr · **Posted:** Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:52 pm

jeepskate wrote:

So Linewarbr, I'm really trying to understand here, not criticize. Not picking on you, because there seem to be a lot of people who feel the way you do, but hoping you can help me understand your point of view. When you say "I don't understand why people are so adamant that it IS for real," what is the "it" you're talking about?

Global warming in and of itself is not a theory. It is a fact. There are theories for what causes it and how much of an effect humans are having on it relative to the earth's natural climatic cycles. But there's no doubt that the planet is getting warmer. Polar icecaps melting, glaciers shrinking. You don't need to go back more than 50 or 75 years and in some cases even less time, to see dramatic evidence of that in photographs. I only know of one thing that melts ice, and that's heat.

Is it just a question for you of whether the global warming that we're currently seeing is human-caused or part of some larger natural cycle? Or do you really question whether the earth is warmer now than it was decades ago?

EDIT: Here's one of the photos I'm talking about, from the USGS:

*Photos deleted to conserve space**

The "it" I'm talking about is the idea that warming is new, and created by man's release of "greenhouse" gases rather than a normal climatological cycle. Therefore I eschew the moniker "Gobal Warming" and all of its associations. "Climatological cycling", or "Cyclical warming period" would be more appropriate, in my opinion.

I earned a B.A. in History, and am familiar with the "Medieval Warming Period" that tomsjeep refers to. That was (IIRC) from about 850 A.D. to 1150 A.D. and was a high time for naval exploration by the Vikings. However, that 3 to 400 year period was followed by another period of cooling where the (somewhat spotty) Medieval records indicate an average 3 degree C drop in temperature in the early part of the 14th century. This led to widespread famine and crop adjustments in Europe, and coincided with the timing of the Black Plague to kill millions upon millions of people.

My point being: historically, there is evidence of climatalogical cycles. However, there is not enough empirical data available that can truly be put to the test of the scientific method to prove or disprove the current focus of "Global Warming." Ice cores and other meteorological extrapolations are not absolute enough to meet the definition of "empirical data" that the scientific method requires. A lot of assumptions have to be made on what the meteorological data represents in order to apply it, so there is a gray area.

Keep in mind that I live in Hurricane central, about 60 miles west-northwest of New Orleans and about 75 miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. If anyone has an interest in mediating man-made climate change, it would be someone that has chosen to live where I live.

ATXKJ · **Posted:** Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:54 pm

If there's a smoking gun in all of this - it's how bad the modeling code is.
It's really hard to write good programs
It's harder to write programs that model physical phenomenon.

This snippets of code they're released are bad....
data hard coded into the program.
subroutines that square a number and get negatives....

The weak point has always been that the data set is so complex it can only be run by a handful of supercomputers
and they've never released the code before.

http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2009/11/anthropogenic-global-warming-will-lose-geeks-thanks-to-bad-code.php

I still don't think it's a good idea to dump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere -

if you make a mess you have to clean it up - basic kindergarten.

but the models are trash.

tommudd · **Posted:** Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:26 pm

The mention of glaciers makes me think of something the guide who took us up Mount Kilimanjaro stated ( Mount Kilimanjaro being the highest point in Africa for those who don't know and very close to the equator) :wink:

20 years ago a group of scientests from the USA planted markers to track how the glaicers on top of Kili were shrinking, they did shrink some for a few years.

BUT Those markers now........are almost covered back up with snow/glaciers ! So is that still Global warming?

Boiler · **Posted:** Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:53 pm

Part of the problem is that people try to prove either side of the story by citing a change in one location. We definitely see warm and cold decades locally. I have no doubt that my state could see warmer years for 5 or 10 years while the rest of the earth is cooling on average, or vice versa.

I think you'd have to have a widespread network of weather stations and sea level readings to gain much solid data. And as some folks have pointed out, even with recorded temps in history, they weren't standardized widespread networks.

I still think clearing the rainforest and man made emmissions are large enough scale to have an effect on the atmosphere.

dieselenthusiast · **Posted:** Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:00 am

Anytime you significantly change the environment, then you can expect some type of change. I don’t think anyone is debating cause and effect. However, one of the many problems stems from people who are trying to use “global warming” as a method to control politics. The earth, ocean, atmosphere, and sun are too complex to start making predictions. Genetically modified foods, polluted ground water, and environmental impact is going to destroy us before global warming.

Tokyojoe · **Posted:** Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:27 am

For the people that mention CO2 is what plants want and that in turn makes O2 for us........We are destroying the plants. Deforestation (Amazon Rain Forest is the most important piece of the puzzle) is making the O2 makers less and less, which also helps increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

warp2diesel · **Posted:** Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:08 am

Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and others are piling on.
I heard on the way to my project that an insider frustrated with the cover up and fraud did the info dump and let everyone suspect Hackers.
Here is one blog: http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/med ... ud-stupid/

Type Climate Gate into Google and the amount of info is overwhelming.

Mainstream media sat on it for a month after the insider handed over the documents pointing out the corruption and fraud.

Hackers uncover more corruption with Global Warming

Who is online