Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I've got no problems with an independent review.

I'd like to place a bet now though that if any wrongdoing is uncovered, it will be irregularities pertaining to FOIA requests, and not the actual research itself. That sort of thing is the only stuff I've seen in the emails that seems truly suspect.

A review would be a very good thing. On one hand it could unearth that these scientists have been falsifying results (which I don't believe to be the case), and on the other it could prove the data is sound and restore credibility to the theory of global warming.

I agree with Elfer that the dodgy stuff will not be the research, but about the deleting of emails and files and the like.

oo, this is going to be fun.
if nothing is found: conspiracy!
if something is found that doesn't damage GW (as is being discussed above): omgz! the govrament said it would do somthing but didnt! conspiracy!!!

At 11/24/09 11:42 PM, Elfer wrote:

I'd like to place a bet now though that if any wrongdoing is uncovered, it will be irregularities pertaining to FOIA requests, and not the actual research itself. That sort of thing is the only stuff I've seen in the emails that seems truly suspect.

For a group that receives federal funding, problems with transparency are very serious. The United States's major cable news network, Fox News (it gets a lot of flack, but that naturally goes along with being the most popular), gives this significant coverage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS -A

meh, unless the citizenry get into nothing short of a massive uproar over this, the government is going to shrug its shoulders at the information and continue to press ahead with their climate control legislation. The truth should never get in the way of more government control... in their minds at least.

I hope it turns into a huge deal and a full investigation digs in deep and shows the truth. if these people were destroying data to prevent it from being released, then there is obviously a reason as to WHY this data is being destroyed. If the data was supporting their theory, then they would have been more than glad to release it instead of destroying it.

At 11/26/09 05:57 PM, Al6200 wrote: For a group that receives federal funding, problems with transparency are very serious. The United States's major cable news network, Fox News (it gets a lot of flack, but that naturally goes along with being the most popular), gives this significant coverage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS -A

Oh, I'm not saying it's not a serious issue. Falsifying anything related to disclosure for essentially any reason is unacceptable.

All I'm saying is, I suspect that the problem is going to be with FOI and not with the research itself.

Other than AI and Mr. Money, I don't think very many people on Newgrounds fully understand the issue. They have admitted to dumping raw data (the data originally used to sell global warming in the first place) as discussed in the news article below,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5777 46,00.html

They stated in one of the e-mails AI kept bringing up that they were going to "oust" one of their employees for being a skeptic. Banning a scientist from science for not sharing your views is, by itself, a capital offense.

Contrary to what they would have you believe, the "entirety of the scientific community" is NOT behind this global warming idea, thousands of scientists have signed a petition as long ago as the Kyoto treaty urging our leaders to disregard bad science.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

(go through the pages and look at the credentials of those signing).

Nonetheless, people like Poxpower are going to continue following climatology and Al Gore because they are zealots to their own religion. They probably are not even aware of the fact that Al Gore, the Nobel Prize winning enviornmentalist, uses more energy in his gigantic house in one month, than any of us do in a year.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environment al-news/latest/al-gore-house-47062202

As a chemistry graduate student myself, I am increasingly disheartened at the state of science. Men of greed have corrupted what once was a a pursuit of truth. They have turned science into a cheap whore. I long for the day when all the B.S. that was greased through the scientific community throughout the last 20 years will be thrown out.

THESE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THEIR DOCTORATES REVOKED AND BE FULLY DRUMMED OUT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY FOREVER!!!

Thankfully, steps in the right direction are being taken. Penn State has launched an investigation into one of its own, a chemistry professor who was in on this little scheme.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/200 9/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.asp x

Al Gore's lies about melting ice and rising sea levels are already being exposed,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhT sI&feature=related

I doubt if anything will be successfully done about this in time to stop Obama's summit, but all successful movements must start at the grassroots and we have the truth on our side. I just hope I live long enough to see integrity return to the realm of science.

At 11/30/09 07:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: Other than AI and Mr. Money, I don't think very many people on Newgrounds fully understand the issue. They have admitted to dumping raw data

Where? Where's the quote?

They stated in one of the e-mails AI kept bringing up that they were going to "oust" one of their employees for being a skeptic.

What email is this?

Contrary to what they would have you believe, the "entirety of the scientific community" is NOT behind this global warming idea

The majority of climate scientists ARE. You know, the scientists who's job it is to figure that out?
In the year 2009, you have to be plainly misinformed to still deny man-made global warming. It was understandable 20 years ago, but not today.

Nonetheless, people like Poxpower are going to continue following climatology and Al Gore

The existence of Al Gore is inconsequential in the face of the facts about global warming.

As a chemistry graduate student myself, I am increasingly disheartened at the state of science.

Well you're part of the "deniers" now, congrats. You're impeding science.

Thankfully, steps in the right direction are being taken. Penn State has launched an investigation into one of its own, a chemistry professor who was in on this little scheme.

Let us know how that turns out. As is predicted by 100% of everyone I've heard on this: nothing's gonna happen as far as exposing research-related misdeeds.

Al Gore's lies about melting ice and rising sea levels are already being exposed,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhT sI&feature=related

Lol that's classic, that guy actually has a redneck accent.
It's like you found your own stereotype.

Anyway if you're ACTUALLY interested in debating man-made global warming, I'd be happy to indulge you any day. Ask me specific questions, give me specific data etc.

There's several people on this forum who can answer your questions too.

At 11/30/09 07:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: As a chemistry graduate student myself,

Just going by your profile and your complete lack of understanding of the issues here, I'm guessing that this one is a fib.

At 11/30/09 09:06 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 11/30/09 07:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: As a chemistry graduate student myself,

Just going by your profile and your complete lack of understanding of the issues here, I'm guessing that this one is a fib.

Dude he graduated his first semester of high school chemistry, it totally counts.

At 11/30/09 07:35 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/30/09 07:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: Other than AI and Mr. Money, I don't think very many people on Newgrounds fully understand the issue. They have admitted to dumping raw data

Where? Where's the quote

It was in the link I provided. I thought that was clear.

They stated in one of the e-mails AI kept bringing up that they were going to "oust" one of their employees for being a skeptic.

What email is this?

"Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

That one

Contrary to what they would have you believe, the "entirety of the scientific community" is NOT behind this global warming idea

The majority of climate scientists ARE. You know, the scientists who's job it is to figure that out?
In the year 2009, you have to be plainly misinformed to still deny man-made global warming. It was understandable 20 years ago, but not today.

And you are going to tell me thousands of scientists (ranging from bachelors to ph.Ds) are all misinformed? But I guess you are certain that you are right huh. How egotistical you must be.

Nonetheless, people like Poxpower are going to continue following climatology and Al Gore

The existence of Al Gore is inconsequential in the face of the facts about global warming.

He is the one who got everyone riled up about it in the first place. If people were not taken in by his sensationalism, nobody would be discussing global warming right now. I guess I just assumed he was your guru.

As a chemistry graduate student myself, I am increasingly disheartened at the state of science.

Well you're part of the "deniers" now, congrats. You're impeding science.

I'm not the one greasing falsehoods through in the name of science.

Thankfully, steps in the right direction are being taken. Penn State has launched an investigation into one of its own, a chemistry professor who was in on this little scheme.

Let us know how that turns out. As is predicted by 100% of everyone I've heard on this: nothing's gonna happen as far as exposing research-related misdeeds.

Regardless of whomever you've been talking to in your little bubble, the truth ALWAYS has a tendency to be found. It is but a matter of time before the lid on this whole thing is blown wide open and justice is done.

Al Gore's lies about melting ice and rising sea levels are already being exposed,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWvHVjhT sI&feature=related

Lol that's classic, that guy actually has a redneck accent.
It's like you found your own stereotype.

That's it? You offer up no argument other than "Lol redneck accent"? I am starting to understand AI's frustration, how in the Hell did a troll ever get to be a mod? Perhaps you should learn something and come back when you actually have fodder for the argument.

Anyway if you're ACTUALLY interested in debating man-made global warming, I'd be happy to indulge you any day. Ask me specific questions, give me specific data etc.

There's several people on this forum who can answer your questions too.

Ok, explain to me why people like you continue to believe it is real when their own e-mails expose them for deleting data (first link), ousting those who don't agree with them (if it was pure science, such things would not be necessary), and instructing their coworkers not to inform people that they have a right to see the data under the Freedom of Information Act? Of course, I suppose you are about to tell me that people always act so secretive when they have nothing to hide huh. I suppose you can also tell me why, in recent years, temperatures are actually colder than they have been in a long time. I suppose you are going to tell me how other planets in our solar system are heating up without the effects of man if "global warming" is indeed man's doing?

Remember the whole "global cooling" scare? My parents and grandparents do. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cool ing

They actually told people in the 70's that man's habits were gonna bring on a new ice age! I think its funny how they've switched gears and started crying "OMG global warming" and the temperatures are getting colder XD. I sometimes wonder if fate is doing that so those of us with common sense will get up, look outside, and recognize the crock of horse shit for what it is.

I leave here with one final point. If there truly is nothing to these hacked e-mails as you claim, why is the mainstream media all over it? I have already provided a couple links to Fox News (including the thread opening post) but here it is in the Washington Times in case you aren't a big fan of that News station,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009 /nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-coolin g/

At 11/30/09 09:06 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 11/30/09 07:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: As a chemistry graduate student myself,

Just going by your profile and your complete lack of understanding of the issues here, I'm guessing that this one is a fib.

You do realize that probably nobody on this site uses their real info? I don't even think the place I listed exists. I attend Penn State as a grad student in Chemistry, that is a fact. That is how I know about Penn State's investigation of one of their own professors in their department.

At 11/30/09 10:32 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

It was in the link I provided. I thought that was clear.

In here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5777 46,00.html?
There's no quote in here, only Fox news fabricating wild claims about intricate lies and data manipulation.

"Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

How is going through official channels dishonest?
Anyway the problem that was being discussed in these emails ( as far as I understand ) is how the deniers have infiltrated some journals and have them put themselves in a place to be able to give a passing grade to pure junk for political reasons.

Basically they suspect HIM of being dishonest and tried to figure out a legit way to get him out of there.

Creationists have done the same thing whereby they managed to put a few of their ideologically-motivated people in positions of power to publish junk science. Expelled was about this, notably, where a scientist used his position as the editor of a journal to forego the peer-review process and publish ID-supporting bullshit in a serious journal.

That's really really bad for science.

And you are going to tell me thousands of scientists (ranging from bachelors to ph.Ds) are all misinformed?

haha
You're basically using the argument that tons of scientists agree with you to refute my argument that EVEN MORE scientists agree with me.

He is the one who got everyone riled up about it in the first place.

No, it's been going on for well over 20 years.

Ok, explain to me why people like you continue to believe it is real when their own e-mails expose them for deleting data (first link),

Nothing in the emails indicate they have deleted any relevant data.
Nothing, anywhere.

You have quite obviously NOT read any of the emails.

ousting those who don't agree with them

What if the people who don't agree with them do so for unscientific reasons?
Why would it be wrong to seek to remove them in that case?

why, in recent years, temperatures are actually colder than they have been in a long time.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
They're not colder. they're much warmer.

I suppose you are going to tell me how other planets in our solar system are heating up without the effects of man if "global warming" is indeed man's doing?

That's entirely irrelevant. In fact, it's retarded.

Remember the whole "global cooling" scare? My parents and grandparents do. Read about it here:

"This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles,..."

I don't think there's even a single scientific paper that predicted imminent significant global cooling and incited people to be alarmed.

You were misinformed.

why is the mainstream media all over it?

Because they're after a story that supports the political agenda of those who employ them.
Fox news is shit. It's a notoriously corrupt news source.

And the rest aren't far above, especially in terms of science reporting. Just about every time, they will get something wrong, and ESPECIALLY when it's about controvertial issues or politically charged issues.

In Montana there has been a major decrease in the length of snowy weather (last year we got about two weeks total of snowfall) as compared to about six years ago when we would have snowfall in October, at the latest.

Just another Noob getting owned.

To be honest while Global Warming is a definite reality. The "threat" of Global Warming is not. What we call Global Warming is just a phase in a cycle of Global Climate change that happens ever few centuries or so on our planet.
Now, the whole "Going Green" thing may be money wasted in some opinions, given the point stated above. However, "Going Green" is reducing on carbon emissions, cleaner air, electricity use, cheaper power, and cutting down on the amount of trash in landfills, even if just a bit. Now again, some may say that this is all just a huge waste of money, and its idiotic to have it now, with the economy in its condition. Well, to be honest, when it comes to the government, no time is ever a good time to spend money, so its really now or never, I guarantee you if its all stopped now, its never gonna happen.

At 11/30/09 11:05 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/30/09 10:32 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

In here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5777 46,00.html?
There's no quote in here, only Fox news fabricating wild claims about intricate lies and data manipulation.

Umm... no they specifically discuss the deletion of e-mails and "blips".

"Mike, 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."

or this gem,

"It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"

How is going through official channels dishonest?

What is dishonest and frankly enraging is that they would fire someone for no other reason than the fact that they disagree. It is not at all uncommon for scientists to disagree with each other on various matters. How would you feel if you were a scientist and your creationist boss fired you because you discussed evolution in the context of your work?

Anyway the problem that was being discussed in these emails ( as far as I understand ) is how the deniers have infiltrated some journals and have them put themselves in a place to be able to give a passing grade to pure junk for political reasons.

"Infiltrated some journals"? Journals are public domain. Any student at any university has free access to any article in any journal through the university. I assume you are talking about how they illegally infiltrated their e-mails. No one is denying that the hackers broke the law, but the crimes these false scientists have committed are the big picture.

Basically they suspect HIM of being dishonest and tried to figure out a legit way to get him out of there.

No they specifically state in their e-mail that he is in the "greenhouse skeptics camp". Reread that e-mail above. Would you like it if a bigot fired you for not sharing his beliefs?

Creationists have done the same thing whereby they managed to put a few of their ideologically-motivated people in positions of power to publish junk science. Expelled was about this, notably, where a scientist used his position as the editor of a journal to forego the peer-review process and publish ID-supporting bullshit in a serious journal.

First, that is precisely what is happening, except that it is the Church of Climatology banishing the skeptics. What happened to the days when scientists were inherently skeptic? Second, Expelled was actually in favor of ID and tried to discredit (poorly) the theory of evolution.

That's really really bad for science.

And yet it is happening and you support it.

haha
You're basically using the argument that tons of scientists agree with you to refute my argument that EVEN MORE scientists agree with me.

Prove it. I'm not convinced that the majority is behind it. Your side may have larger media attention/federal funding because the government wants an excuse for more taxes, but I don't believe a louder voice inherently means more supporters.

He is the one who got everyone riled up about it in the first place.

No, it's been going on for well over 20 years.

I never heard about it until he started up and I'm rather certain it would not even be an issue if he didn't get started.

Nothing in the emails indicate they have deleted any relevant data.
Nothing, anywhere.

You have quite obviously NOT read any of the emails.

See the first two e-mails listed in which they specifically state they are deleting e-mails and "blips" in the data. YOU have not been reading sir.

What if the people who don't agree with them do so for unscientific reasons?
Why would it be wrong to seek to remove them in that case?

1) There is no indication that he didn't agree for unscientific reasons. In fact, most people in the "greenhouse skeptics camp" are scientists themselves.

2) Even if it is true that he didn't believe for unscientific reasons, a person's personal beliefs are their own. So yes, it would still be wrong.

why, in recent years, temperatures are actually colder than they have been in a long time.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
They're not colder. they're much warmer.

Are you on crack? Go take a look outside. We had snow in Pennsylvania back in August for f#^@ sake! As far as I know that has never happened before. Similar cold weather was reported by family back in Illinois. Here is the science:

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.co m/2009/07/global-temperature-decline.htm l
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon itors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/ar ticle10866.htm

I suppose you are going to tell me how other planets in our solar system are heating up without the effects of man if "global warming" is indeed man's doing?

That's entirely irrelevant. In fact, it's retarded.

What!?! Let me explain this to you so that even Al Gore's retarded cousin can understand this. Proponents of global warming claim that 1) the temperatures are rising and 2) the cause is manmade. Skeptics pointed out it is due to solar activity, not human activity. The fact that temperatures are rising rather considerably on other planets as well is compelling evidence of this fact. If you understood basic logic you would be able to put two and two together and think "well golly gee, I guess it was the sun after all and not those dirty suv drivers after all".

Remember the whole "global cooling" scare? My parents and grandparents do. Read about it here:

"This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles,..."

PRECISELY!!! What I am saying is that the same thing is happening here! Because those inaccurate claims had the media's attention, everyone who lived back then just assumed it was the consensus of the scientific community because, after all, there are scientists on national tv telling them so. What is happening today regarding global warming is no different.

I don't think there's even a single scientific paper that predicted imminent significant global cooling and incited people to be alarmed.

You were misinformed.

No, I'm not. Because I never claimed to believe in global colding. I am comparing global warming to the global colding scare of the 70's. They are equally inaccurate and overhyped. In 10 or 20 years you are going to look back on global warming and think "wow, I was a f*$&ing idiot to have believed in that".

why is the mainstream media all over it?

Because they're after a story that supports the political agenda of those who employ them.
Fox news is shit. It's a notoriously corrupt news source.

Fox News is not the only news source reporting it.

The Washington Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/scienc e/earth/28hack.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=climat egate&st=cse

Renew America:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vern on/091130

An Independent News Source called "Scoop":
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0911/S0 0058.htm

Truth be told, one can google "ClimateGate" and find page after page of sources on this. Personally, I find it pathetic that when confronted with fact you attack the most popular news station in America.

:Just about every time, they will get something wrong, and ESPECIALLY when it's about controvertial issues or politically charged issues.

Somehow, I think they only get it wrong when you disagree with them. You're egotistical.

At 12/1/09 12:08 AM, studmuffin7 wrote:

Umm... no they specifically discuss the deletion of e-mails and "blips".

Ok I must be missing something from that site. Maybe it's not loading properly.

"Mike, Can you delete any emails...

Yeah no one ever deletes emails...

"It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip"

Yeah and what is the 1940's blip? Do you know?
If you don't, how can you accuse them of anything?

What is dishonest and frankly enraging is that they would fire someone for no other reason than the fact that they disagree.

Ok, who's being fired from where now?

I assume you are talking about how they illegally infiltrated their e-mails.

No, I'm saying that some politically-motivated scientists have managed to attain positions of power among journals before, sometimes before people knew who they really where, and used their position to pass crap and impede good science.

At 12/1/09 12:09 AM, studmuffin7 wrote:

Prove it. I'm not convinced that the majority is behind it. Your side may have larger media attention/federal funding because the government wants an excuse for more taxes, but I don't believe a louder voice inherently means more supporters.

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm ing_controversy#Public_opinion

The reality is that in 2009, the global warming deniers are largely misinformed or politically motivated douchebags.

I never heard about it until he started up and I'm rather certain it would not even be an issue if he didn't get started.

The data has been trickling in for a long time and lead to the Kyoto protocol, in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Proto col
That's 12 years ago and has nothing to do with Al Gore as far as I know other than he was the vice-president at the time.

But the main point is that Al Gore is irrelevant on this issue as he's not a climate scientist, all he's doing is reporting what he's heard. Deniers latched onto his movie because it was an easy target to associate with global warming and they imagine that shooting the movie down somehow invalidates the real science behind some of it.

See the first two e-mails listed in which they specifically state they are deleting e-mails and "blips" in the data. YOU have not been reading sir.

No, nowhere in there do they say they're deleting any relevant information to mislead the public ( who's never read their paper anyway )
I delete emails all the time, it means nothing.

http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.co m/2009/07/global-temperature-decline.htm l
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon itors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/ar ticle10866.htm

Climate fluctuates with ups and down from year to year. Warming can only be perceived when you look at entire decades AND THE ENTIRE PLANET, not a few months in a few cities.

Skeptics pointed out it is due to solar activity, not human activity.

Here's the graph you're talking about with the solar activity / temperature rise correlation:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/
temp_vs_spots.gif

Notice how they're seemingly linked right up to the mid-80s and then suddenly split? That's a graph that deniers love to show, but they truncate the last 20 years and show this graph: http://www.global-warming-and-the-climat e.com/images/sunspot-lenght-&-teperature .gif

Notice it stops in the mid-80s.

PRECISELY!!! What I am saying is that the same thing is happening here!

No, global warming has TONS of scientific papers published on it, global cooling had none.
Basically global cooling is a media fabrication, global warming is supported almost unanimously by the scientific community and the experts in the relevant domains. It's the exact opposite.

What IS comparable is the global cooling scare and the "global warming isn't real" bullshit. Those are the same.

Fox News is not the only news source reporting it.

I didn't say they were the only ones who sucked at science reporting.
Most do.

Media want a story, not some boring shit like "irrelevant emails hacked: nothing will happen".

Ok here's the graph for anyone else who's never seen it.

So yeah if you ever hear the "solar activity is causing global warming" claim, no you know why it's bullshit.

At 11/30/09 10:32 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 11/30/09 07:35 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/30/09 07:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: Other than AI and Mr. Money, I don't think very many people on Newgrounds fully understand the issue. They have admitted to dumping raw data

Where? Where's the quote

It was in the link I provided. I thought that was clear.

"Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

In this case, "this" obviously refers to bad behaviour, since they're going to go through official channels to get rid of an editor that was letting crappy papers into a journal (not one of their own employees, as you're continuing to imply). Obviously, if the guy wasn't a climate skeptic, they'd have much less professional interest in having him removed from his editor position.

He is the one who got everyone riled up about it in the first place. If people were not taken in by his sensationalism, nobody would be discussing global warming right now. I guess I just assumed he was your guru.

Climate change is still an issue, regardless of Al Gore's insane rambling, wild exaggerations, and broad hand-waving about the scale of problems.

Ok, explain to me why people like you continue to believe it is real when their own e-mails expose them for deleting data (first link),

They had the option to save a limited amount of data due to the availability of magnetic tape reels. This would have been in the 80s, when climate change was not a pop culture issue, so they would have had substantially less funding for equipment than they do now.

It's unfortunate that the raw data was lost, but if it was an option between raw data that was unusable for calculations and data that was laboriously corrected for collection variables, it makes sense to keep the corrected data.

If you're already accusing them of fabricating this (enormous set of) corrected data, why do you think keeping the raw data would have been any use?

ousting those who don't agree with them (if it was pure science, such things would not be necessary),

You can see what they're complaining about if you look at some of the other emails. As they mentioned, some politically motivated groups will seed an politically motivated editor into a peer-reviewed journal. That person will then allow poor quality papers that support their views through the process by deliberately selecting similarly motivated reviewers.

They were attempting to have this person removed through official channels of an organization that they don't work for. That means they'd have to prove that he was unethically manipulating the process, which IS a legitimate reason for someone to be fired. If he wasn't, they wouldn't be able to get rid of him.

and instructing their coworkers not to inform people that they have a right to see the data under the Freedom of Information Act?

Because climate change is a sensitive PR issue, with many people involved who have no understanding of the science. While I don't think anyone should be DENIED a FOIA request, not deliberately informing people about them would save them a lot of hassle.

Of course, I suppose you are about to tell me that people always act so secretive when they have nothing to hide huh. I suppose you can also tell me why, in recent years, temperatures are actually colder than they have been in a long time.

Because the warming is a trend and not an equation? As a chemistry grad student, this is something that you really ought to know all about, especially as it applies to large natural systems.

I suppose you are going to tell me how other planets in our solar system are heating up without the effects of man if "global warming" is indeed man's doing?

I don't think anyone is saying that the whole warming trend is due to humans (and if they are, they're wrong). Since planetary temperature is influenced by solar activity, it makes sense that all planets would have a rising surface temperature, especially those with no atmosphere.

Remember the whole "global cooling" scare? My parents and grandparents do. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cool ing

Golbal cooling was nothing but a big media circus that wasn't backed by real science. Current climate change is different from this in that there is a HUGE media circus, but with actual science to back it up. The science, of course, doesn't say the same things that the media is drumming it up into, but it's not as if media reporting on scientific issues has ever been accurate.

I leave here with one final point. If there truly is nothing to these hacked e-mails as you claim, why is the mainstream media all over it? I have already provided a couple links to Fox News (including the thread opening post) but here it is in the Washington Times in case you aren't a big fan of that News station,

They're reporting on it because it has entered the public consciousness. Journalists are as underqualified to interpret this information as the general public is, so they're not going to be the ones to come out and say it's no big deal.

At 12/1/09 01:02 AM, poxpower wrote: Ok here's the graph for anyone else who's never seen it.

So yeah if you ever hear the "solar activity is causing global warming" claim, no you know why it's bullshit.

That graph backs up the solar activity claim. Notice how the number of sunspots is rising with the temperature in the later years and dropping with the temperature in the early middle. You just presented evidence that disproves your claim and tried to pass it off as evidence that it supports your claim.

At 12/1/09 10:17 AM, studmuffin7 wrote: That graph backs up the solar activity claim. Notice how the number of sunspots is rising with the temperature in the later years and dropping with the temperature in the early middle. You just presented evidence that disproves your claim and tried to pass it off as evidence that it supports your claim.

Except that there's a fairly obvious divergence in the last several decades, which is what you would expect if there was an anthropogenic warming effect.

At 12/1/09 11:48 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/1/09 10:17 AM, studmuffin7 wrote: That graph backs up the solar activity claim. Notice how the number of sunspots is rising with the temperature in the later years and dropping with the temperature in the early middle. You just presented evidence that disproves your claim and tried to pass it off as evidence that it supports your claim.

Except that there's a fairly obvious divergence in the last several decades, which is what you would expect if there was an anthropogenic warming effect.

We would need at least another 5 or 10 years to confirm that it is really a divergence. There are several places on that graph where, if cut off at that point, woulc look like a divergence. As it stands now, it looks like the temperature is correlating with solar activity.

At 12/1/09 12:41 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

We would need at least another 5 or 10 years to confirm that it is really a divergence.

See, that's the "moving the goalpost" fallacy.
In 10 years? "Oh we really need 10 MORE years".

At 12/1/09 12:41 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

You just presented evidence that disproves your claim and tried to pass it off as evidence that it supports your claim.

We would need at least another 5 or 10 years to confirm that it is really a divergence.

See what happened here? You tried to claim that it disproved what he was saying, then flipped it around to saying "it's not good enough to prove what he's saying"

This is the exact reason that we can't be confident attributing the warming effect to the solar cycle or other natural cycles. We're seeing data that suggests an anthropogenic warming effect IN ADDITION to the natural warming effects, and there's a good theoretical explanation for why this would occur. It's another reminder of why reducing pollution and promoting sustainable technology is a good idea.

Really, I wish global warming wasn't seen as such a huge popular issue. I wish it was viewed as one more reason among the MULTITUDE of reasons to support such changes. However, now it's grown so big that in the public eye, it's become "Global warming is real and critical, or environmentally friendly technology is worthless."

Do we have absolute, fail-safe, conclusive PROOF that humans are causing a warming trend that's going to end up being catastrophic? No. But there's a huge number of reasons that we need to start being more environmentally conscious, and it's always easier to make changes earlier rather than later. In other words, if we start now, and global warming somehow turns out to be all smoke and mirrors fifty years down the line, we're left with 50 years worth of cleaner, sustainable, more efficient technology. If we wait 50 years and global warming continues to become more and more solid until it becomes an inescapable conclusive fact, then all of a sudden we've got 50 years worth of catching up to do.

heh, Barbara Boxer wants the "Hacker" charged for stealing the Emails. That's about right. "We may look into the matter, we may not." Code for "To hell with the truth, that hurts our agenda!" and of course, she wants to beat the kid who tells daddy about the men that visit mom in her bedroom every Tuesday and Friday. (Metaphor btw).

any responsible government would see this information and launch a full scale investigation on the institutions involved, along with the scientists themselves.

If global warming was an irrefutable fact (and its NOT) then the government's investigation would prove that these Emails have no merit and that global warming is indeed real. Instead, the government is telling people to shut up, sit down, and let them implement their agenda, regardless of what the truth may be.

Also, Al Gore suddenly cancels a lecture in Copenhagen. He knows he'll be asked some mighty tough questions that does not want to answer and probably couldn't figure out how to dodge them.

Looks like NASA is in on it too, which doesn't surprise me in the least.

Korriken, your idiocy never ceases to amaze me. Pardon me while I abrasively search your house and computer every Thursday and Friday and publish all of your personal information on the web. Also, this is for your own good. You might very well be an evil man and its society's right to know this!

Hell, you might be an under cover secret liberal pushing an obtuse conservative agenda as a Parody, and Newgrounds has the right to know this!

After a quick skim of this thread, I see Poxpower accusing global warming skeptics of being no better than young earth creationists.

This is an exciting idea and maybe I'll shoot that one off myself next time I'm talking to someone who says that global warming is bullshit.

At 12/4/09 06:54 AM, Korriken wrote: heh, Barbara Boxer wants the "Hacker" charged for stealing the Emails. That's about right. "We may look into the matter, we may not." Code for "To hell with the truth, that hurts our agenda!" and of course, she wants to beat the kid who tells daddy about the men that visit mom in her bedroom every Tuesday and Friday. (Metaphor btw).

The difference here is that these hackers aren't whistle blowers, they're just people who released tons and tons of information, then let people sift through it to see if there's any problems with it. If there was clear-cut wrongdoing, it would be a different story.

For example, last year at my university an anonymous tipster stole a bunch of TD-1 forms (forms that have an employees personal information on them, birth date, address, social insurance number, etc. etc, enough information to commit some serious identity fraud) from the student government and dropped them off at a few student newspapers. The difference here was that he wanted to draw attention to the fact that these documents were sitting out in a hallway in a box labeled "PAYROLL - REGISTERS - TIMESHEETS - TD-1"

The student government's response was that they had intended to move the box to a locked store room, but when they got to the locked store room, they discovered that the doors were locked, so they just left the box in the hall. By the time we got them to move it, it had been there for weeks. After the incident, the undergraduate president said that she wanted to investigate the person who had stolen the documents and have them disciplined. In this case, her opinion was widely panned as stupid.

Now, had this person smashed the lock on a store room, stolen a bunch of documents and given them to the newspapers after doing who knows what with the information, there would probably be legitimate concern about finding out who it was.