Hadley CRU files/emails hacked!

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

This is the kind of extremist stuff that really turns people off.

--

It just seems like there's no evidence to support AGW. We just have CO2 levels, and then a bunch of computer predictions, but nothing else really. It seems like if there were any real, hardcore evidence then this wouldn't be so controversial.

 

Saw no evidence of it.

This is typical teabagger hysteria. "WE FOUND THE WMD's!" blah...blah...blah.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

You are talking about your teabagging buddies, right?

 

You saw no evidence of the hacking occurring? What about Hadley admitting their system was compromised?

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

Wth? We've got temps, CO2 levels, physics, ocean temps, ocean CO2 levels and acidity, ice cap melt, glacier melt, material and energy balances, plus models. But nothing else really...we haven't been able to find it carved in stone somewhere by the hand of the Supreme Being.

The question is still one of degree(s). We have no other choice than to create and refine models trying to account for all known effects, including CO2. The impact that CO2 will have over any given timescale is still an approximation. The DIRECTION is not.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

If you believe that then you must admire them or be jealous of them, because that is EXACTLY how you come off.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

There is a ton of data that points in the direction of AGW. Not all of it is perfect but considering the complex nature of the field of study I wouldn't expect it to be, not while it is still in its infancy.

Just keep asking quality questions and you'll get answers my friend. Like I said in the other thread, stay away from the politics and blogs. They are just going to confuse you more.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

Note to mods:
This and the other two threads on this really should be merged. Docbooks has been spamming.

 

What they claim the hackers uncovered, and what the hackers actually seem to have are two different things. It's reminiscent of the many Fox accounts of finding WMD's in Iraq following the invasion.

 

Sure Shawn. Here are just a few:

• Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
• Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
• Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
• Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

There are many, many more of these - from evasiveness in producing data, how to beat FOI requests, how to cover up results inconsistent with AGW, and on and on.

 

Re: So called "scientists" fake data to promote GW religion - for years!

I suggest the a new thread be started that only Ufourya and Docbooks can post to. (The only threads that they can post to!) Then they can post all the denialist BS to their hearts content, and leave the rest of us to think rationally.

That way they can yell in each others ears, much like Faux news does to it own choir.

Icarus

 

I don't think I've seen a more complete and thorough destruction of one side in a debate until now. I guess those so heavily invested in their (disuputed "science"/religion/fraud) side will need to be content with issuing a one-star thread rating.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair

--

The Death Blow to Climate Science

Professor Wegman showed how this “community of scientists” published together and peer reviewed each other’s work. I was always suspicious about why peer review was such a big deal. Now all my suspicions are confirmed. The emails reveal how they controlled the process, including manipulating some of the major journals like Science and Nature. We know the editor of the Journal of Climate, Andrew Weaver, was one of the “community”. They organized lists of reviewers when required making sure they gave the editor only favorable names. They threatened to isolate and marginalize one editor who they believed was recalcitrant.
Total Control

These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times.

The Death Blow to Climate Science

 

I still haven't seen a single shred to support this claim. The data haven't changed.

Time for me to put another troll on ignore along with docbooks.

 

You unsurprisingly fit my description of "lost cause".

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair

"Whether laws were broken or not, the emails prove beyond doubt how resistant Jones and his colleagues were to having their work properly scrutinised by anyone not of their “team”. No wonder, perhaps, when the documents reveal Jones has so far attracted $25 million in grants."

The warmist conspiracy: the emails that most damn Jones | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

 

That is what is amusing about this whole thing. People are assuming that couple of climate scientists run the whole show and produce all of the data. So far I have not found anything to contradict the accumulated data nor anything that would disprove the AWG hypothesis. People just love to jump to conclusions that support their worldview.

 

Have you been looking for anything that disproves it. Theres hundreds of articles out there.

Hell even NOAA's own data disproves it. If you would like I could send you all the emails that were hacked from there

 

Please direct me to where I have jumped to conclusions on this issue? Did I tell you that you were going to die in a blazing inferno or that I would enjoy seeing your house sink in a major hurricane-induced flood event? How many threads have I started that were intended to incite arguments based on my worldview and not on sound science?

Of course I have a stance on the subject but I also read the scientific papers and not the tabloids unlike yourself. There is a difference between reading the data and having a good idea regarding the subject vs. getting my panties in a bunch because my political worldview is under threat. Then searching for poorly contrived articles to support my view WITHOUT HAVING EVEN A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCE INVOLVED. You're barking up the wrong tree. Stick to what you know mate, or go back to school.

 

When the individual is obviously wrong then I don't see a problem with that. It may not be the best approach but when you get the same idiots posting the same crap over and over it becomes a bit annoying. You also have to realize that as a public forum anyone can be reading these posts and if they read misinformation and no one corrects it they may walk away dumber for their efforts.