Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[pegasus]

They have been presenting the data for decades. One of the first to publically raise it as an issue did so in the early 1970's. When did anyone actually start looking and listening to the data, 25yrs later....... The masses are still largely ignorant after 3 decades. This isn't about "sides", science is about right and wrong.

Back then they we were supposed to be worrying about global cooling, and an up coming ice age!!

Anyways whats the point of this discussion if all of us but you are in denial, ignorant, say nothing of relevance, and clearly don't understand the science or haven't read the journals you have (most of which have prob be lobbied not to print any thing from the skeptics, and have data which has been tamperd with lol).

This whole global warming bs is like religion, either do as we say or the earth will become so hot that billions will die as temperatures keep on rising and rising, and religion tells people do as the book says or you'll go to hell.

But ofcourse, you've got skin in the game, so I don't expect you to accept so fast that *maybe* just maybe you've been mislead.

 

[pegasus]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...c-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gl...percomputer-projections-scare-people-global-w

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/19/al-gore-photoshops-hurricanes-new-books-cover

interesting read..

 

[pegasus]

several million degrees lulz

 

[tim290280]

Back then they we were supposed to be worrying about global cooling, and an up coming ice age!!

Anyways whats the point of this discussion if all of us but you are in denial, ignorant, say nothing of relevance, and clearly don't understand the science or haven't read the journals you have (most of which have prob be lobbied not to print any thing from the skeptics, and have data which has been tamperd with lol).

This whole global warming bs is like religion, either do as we say or the earth will become so hot that billions will die as temperatures keep on rising and rising, and religion tells people do as the book says or you'll go to hell.

But ofcourse, you've got skin in the game, so I don't expect you to accept so fast that *maybe* just maybe you've been mislead.

The storm had now definitely abated, and what thunder there was now grumbled over more distant hills, like a man saying "And another thing…" twenty minutes after admitting he's lost the argument.

 

[pegasus]

how did I lose the argument (not that I came here to argue about it)? did you convince me I was wrong? did you put forward anything as to show why some of the stuff I post were wrong?

 

[tim290280]

how did I lose the argument (not that I came here to argue about it)? did you convince me I was wrong? did you put forward anything as to show why some of the stuff I post were wrong?

Your previous post was pretty much stating "liar-liar" after I suggested you read up on the science from the journals rather than mass media.

 

[pegasus]

Your previous post was pretty much stating "liar-liar" after I suggested you read up on the science from the journals rather than mass media.

I didn't call you a liar, but biased.

It is you who is trying to label everyone else in the thread as brick walls, arrogant, ignorant, uneducated or whatever. If your field of science wasn't so politicised, then clearly you would be the best educated man amongst us in this forum, and your opinions would carry more weight than the rest of us.
But this whole man made global warming has so many holes in it, so much financial interest from the likes of al gore etc that if you expect every one to go along with what your conclusions are on the little data you have and flowed computer models then you have mistaken. One thing I know of for sure is that to think we humans are the sole cause of all the problems and the solution to them all is wrong. Mother nature has managed just fine without us for billions of years, I'm sure it will continue doing so for billions of years to come.

Anyways are journals some holy book? can they not be manipulated like the mass media can? Do you not think its remotely possible to influence the editors in the article selection process? And btw the source of these information isn't mass media, but a hacker who obtained information which wasn't meant to be seen by the people on the outside.

I opened this thread for those who like me, are skeptics. You haven't posted anything of value, but instead you try to question the intelligence of those who disagree with the philosophy you believe in and make fun of the quote sources etc, as was the case in the last thread about climate change.

 

[lifterdead]

Hey Tim!

Don't count me in with the anti-global warming crowd! I'm not an anti-global warmer, but I also don't necessarily believe in anthropomorphic global warming, either.

My beef with the IPCC: It's a political organization, not a scientific one. They doctor statements accordingly.

I'm not making reference to this email fiasco, I'm referring to journals and public statements. I'm NOT discounting ALL of their work, not trying to throw the baby out with that bathwater. Just wanted to indicate that some of their work is dubious.

For example, in 1990, in their first assessment, they stated it would be very difficult to discern human impact on climate change. Suddenly, five years later, in a 1995 report, they contrarily state there is a "discernible human influence" on climate change. What happened?

Simple. Politicians wrote it into the report after the scientists explicitly stated they didn't know in the original report.

This is not internet conspiracy crap. The original and altered documents can be looked up by anyone.


I don't want to bash the IPCC too much for that. They have been remarkably unbiased at other times. But sometimes they get caught in the nasty web of politics.

 

[tim290280]

Hey Tim!

Don't count me in with the anti-global warming crowd! I'm not an anti-global warmer, but I also don't necessarily believe in anthropomorphic global warming, either.

My beef with the IPCC: It's a political organization, not a scientific one. They doctor statements accordingly.

I'm not making reference to this email fiasco, I'm referring to journals and public statements. I'm NOT discounting ALL of their work, not trying to throw the baby out with that bathwater. Just wanted to indicate that some of their work is dubious.

For example, in 1990, in their first assessment, they stated it would be very difficult to discern human impact on climate change. Suddenly, five years later, in a 1995 report, they contrarily state there is a "discernible human influence" on climate change. What happened?

Simple. Politicians wrote it into the report after the scientists explicitly stated they didn't know in the original report.

This is not internet conspiracy crap. The original and altered documents can be looked up by anyone.


I don't want to bash the IPCC too much for that. They have been remarkably unbiased at other times. But sometimes they get caught in the nasty web of politics.

Yeh I think you'd have enjoyed the seminar that I was at then.

I will state one point that runs counter to my previous points. I have personally met with members of the IPCC panel and heard them speak at conferences. I was not impressed with the politics involved and the manner in which they were essentially marketing climate change rather than speaking about the facts. It should be noted though that the speakers who followed these guys actually not only corrected these speakers but made them look stupid. They then went on to present their data on the impacts of climate change.

The IPCC guy was "quoting" some research of the next presenter in the middle of his talk. Sounded very slick and persauding, consumate politician selling the message. Thing was that the next presenter was a little outraged with his research being twisted. It did show climate change was happening, it did show it was man-made (as much as his single piece of research could), but it didn't do what the IPCC claimed.

The actual piece quoted was on sea acidity levels rising and killing coral reefs. The IPCC panel member said that the research had shown a swing in sea acidity that would kill coral reefs in the next 20years. The researcher who did the work said that this wasn't the case at all. They had seen a change in pH at surface levels that may not be able to be buffered by the larger ocean body below it as there was a strata of sea temps. Much more complicated to explain, measure, quantify and present to the masses.

So while I can see why the message had been simplified by the IPCC, it is still degrading the message. The problem is, how do you balance up explaining something very very complicated to a large audience with little background of understanding of the topic, with the need to create awareness in the issues arising from the research? By simplifying (essentially soft lying) you open up the field to witch hunts and fuel scepticism. By not simplifying you don't get a strong message across that people will actually react to.

 

[Ryeland]

So while I can see why the message had been simplified by the IPCC, it is still degrading the message. The problem is, how do you balance up explaining something very very complicated to a large audience with little background of understanding of the topic, with the need to create awareness in the issues arising from the research? By simplifying (essentially soft lying) you open up the field to witch hunts and fuel scepticism. By not simplifying you don't get a strong message across that people will actually react to.

This is the single greatest problem facing modern scientists and academics.

The problem scientists are running into is that the average person doesn't know how the scientific process works. Science needs to be made more accessible. Made accessible not by dumbing it down, but by making a concerted effort to bring the public into more contact with scientists directly. Politicians and businessmen will always twist information to benefit themselves and their causes, that is their job. Academia needs to step down from the ivory tower to level of the average person to make any headway here, just my two cents.

Global Warming is occurring. The data on that is irrefutable. Even if man is not causing it, we are exacerbating it. If, against astronomical odds, man is not to blame for it, the research into higher efficiency and lower footprint living is just as valuable. For all our existence man has sought better performance at any costs, and research funding up until about 25 years ago reflected that fact. The increase in research funding to so called "green" projects is excellent for the planet and for us as a species. Making cleaner and more efficient uses of our resources is of paramount importance.

Tim made an excellent point, if earth's climate changes too drastically our ways of living will be rendered useless. We need to find ways to make more with less and not have to clean up after it.

Whether or not you think man is causing global warming or not the planet is warming. We may not be able to stop it. More research into this topic can only stand to help us get to the truth of the issue. Science is not above coercion, but of all the things on this earth, the scientific method is one of the most reliable and truthful. There really is much more profit to be made from convincing people to use more resources, not less.