nvm

[innonimatu]

People who think the sky is a carpet with holes in it that the light shines through have a hard time getting published in astronomy journals too.

Oh, really? If not believing in the models predicting continued global warming is so silly, then why are the warmists at a loss to explain the absence of any warming over the past 10 years?

Can it be because it has become more difficult to "massage" data recently?, with more sources and more people watching? Or can it be because what have always been natural climate changes out of mankind's control are changing direction? Or can it be simply a temporary "stagnation"? But if the models did not predict such a thing, they were wrong, and cannot be used to justify belief in a future "resumption of the warming".

So, how will warming choose to argue against facts?

 

[Arwon]

....

"Warmists"?

 

[amadeus]

As I said, they would get far, far more money, power and influence if they supported large oil companies, car makers, mining companies and heavy industry... I mean, Jesus Christ, how many billions and billions of dollars do oil companies have at their disposal?? Compare that with a university researcher's salary Some "reward"...

Oil companies produce oil, though. Climatologists only produce fairy tales.

 

[civ_king]

Depends upon how you look at it.

380-280 is 100.

So, it's a 'fraction' of 280 (100/280). That's a pretty big fraction.
However, you can see that CO2 cycles between 200 & 280. So, going up to 380 is essentially over a doubling of the natural rise from baseline.

it's only increased by 65ppm over 50 years, pshaw nothing to worry about

Oh, really? If not believing in the models predicting continued global warming is so silly, then why are the warmists at a loss to explain the absence of any warming over the past 10 years?

Can it be because it has become more difficult to "massage" data recently?, with more sources and more people watching? Or can it be because what have always been natural climate changes out of mankind's control are changing direction? Or can it be simply a temporary "stagnation"? But if the models did not predict such a thing, they were wrong, and cannot be used to justify belief in a future "resumption of the warming".

So, how will warming choose to argue against facts?

hello can we say 1998 WAS EXTRTA HOT BECAUSE IT WAS AN EL NINO YEAR?

I apologize if you took that as rude

 

[Mise]

Oil companies produce oil, though. Climatologists only produce fairy tales.

Do you think that this string of words forms a counterargument? It doesn't. Why aren't the climatologists producing fairy tales that boost oil companies', car makers', mining companies, and heavy industry's profits? Surely, surely, that would give climatologists far more power and money than the meagre salaries of university academics...

@innonimatu: nobody takes you seriously on any subject, and this is no exception. If it's not a conspiracy about bankers stealing our cash it's a conspiracy about university academics making up stories to, uhh, hmm, well, I don't know... You see, there doesn't appear to be a goal to this conspiracy... So I'm quite at a loss as to what the conspiracy is supposed to entail World domination?

 

[Princeps]

People, there is no evidence of any conspiracy. But the "skeptics" community's reaction and deceitful spinning is just delicious evidence of the fact that these "skeptical" morons were nothing but absurd and loony conspiracy theorists that we always presumed them to be. Now we can safely ignore them.

Article concerning the hacking.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

Where is the raw data which would allow other scientists to validate the CRU's models? You know, the one they have been shown to be conspiring to not publish or share with anyone who might disagree with their conclusions?

Where have they been shown to do that?

 

[Mountain-God]

'Skeptics' have had sway over this issue for decades.

It's only now as the weight of evidence and first hand experience is so great, that skeptics are increasingly a ******** or corrupt minority.

When the Chairman of BP says we have a problem, and need to do something about it - then I'm pretty sure we're beyond taking skeptics seriously.

But it's all really obvious isn't it.

We have radically changed over 70% of the Earth's surface/ landmass.

We have radically reduced forestation, and massively increased emissions of carbon dioxide, and methane.

Well, golly, it's going to have an impact isn't it.

Now the real problem is making the polluters finally pay for the full cost of their activity.

Because for a long time now, they've been raking in the cash, without actually having to clean their sh*t up.

But if the banks can convince us to bail them out and still pay them fat salaries and bonuses, how likely is that bit of sense?

 

[Seon]

This.

I would also like to see the people who think that global warming is false proven to be desperate idiots clutching on straws in a maelstrom they are.

First of all, the OP states there are about a thousand of emails, and you sit on your lazy butt and expect me to bother my way through getting a torrenting program, waiting for the seeding to finish and then look until I have sufficient information to prove you wrong? You being here talking with me doesn't involve posting links as arguments. The thing you are trying to shove down my throat now is actually worse since I actually have to get a program designated to read thousands of emails because you're apparently too convinced from them to bother otherwise. Please tell me what the hell you are trying to prove.

As having been said, none of the sources are trustable, the argument in itself is hilarious at first as well.

Also, to be noted, there is no reason whatsoever for a scientist to risk his reputation and spend his ability on time on conspiracies.

Note that as a general rule, conspiracies don't exist. The simple reason being that the profit gained from it is always much easier acquired through normal means - the bigger the profit (Which depends on the conspiracy's size, you know), the harder it is for the conspirator to hide. I mean, e-mails. Here's what's written in the article about the emails:

"Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."

This could just as easily have come from an e-mail which said

___

"Hi John.

The data didn't prove to be as sufficient as we expected, so I'm afraid it isn't accurate enough to go public. Instead publish the good results we got last week from the thermographic experiment, the other thing is a dead end. Get rid of it and delete it, thanks. Oh, and if Bob asks, tell him you lost the documents, not that it was a failure. I don't want to spend a whole night being humiliated by his postulates about the AGW apparently nonexistent.

See you, Tim."

___

I don't imagine a scientist sitting with an evil laughter, happy that he has convinced the world that global warming was a fact, resulting in them knowing something that isn't true.

Finally, this "conspiracy" doesn't ever prove global warming wrong; especially since you might consider there are plenty of other scientists that are still very certain it is happening.

To conclude; the thing is, they don't have any reason to conspire. They're freaking scientists.

You know, I did make a perfectly fine thread about another conspiracy here on CFC the other day, perhaps you could pay that a visit and become further enlightened.

 

[Gustave5436]

Oh, really? If not believing in the models predicting continued global warming is so silly, then why are the warmists at a loss to explain the absence of any warming over the past 10 years?

It would probably be easier had the Earth not continued its warming trend over the past decade. It's easier to explain things that actually happen than the hypothetical things which don't.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, really? If not believing in the models predicting continued global warming is so silly, then why are the warmists at a loss to explain the absence of any warming over the past 10 years[/URL

The entire decade was above average in temperature!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

(You can't do a straight comparison from 1999 to now, because 1999 was aberrantly cool.)

We know the temp is above average, because all around the globe, ice continues to retreat.

The surface water reached a peak high.

The Sun is at one of its lower levels of heat output.

When I put insulation in my house, I was able to turn my furnace down and still stay warm.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm with Seon. It doesn't make sense for scientists to be hiding information like that - their whole job is to find out what's happening, and besides with the number of scientists working on it that information would have come out fast.

 

[El_Machinae]

There could be a conspiracy. There are four datasets, though.

 

[PiMan]

Corporations have more money to give to scientists than any government budget.

 

[Mise]

Since when was Atmospheric Physics a social science?

 

[Princeps]

Scientists benefit the government by creating "scientific" proof of whatever problem and government uses it as an excuse for more taxes and regulations.

There is no direct incentive to do so. And what you're suggesting is that there is a some kind of a conspiracy that includes all major scientific establishments, including most private ones, to simply provide excuses for "taxes and regulations".

Most governments do not pursue taxes and regulations simply for the sake of taxes and regulations as the idiotic, absurd libertarians insist. Government are not entities with inherent purposes or values, but they're defined by the politicians and populations that control them. And as such, most governments would have no incentive whatsoever to increase climate regulations or carbon taxes if they could go on polluting forever.

But, seriously, libertarians cannot really be debated with. Their view of politics are so deeply misguided.

Its not that it is some secret conspiracy,

But you just insisted, without any evidence -- certainly with none derived from these emails -- that there was a conspiracy.

just the intellectuals dont have much job oppurtunities other than government jobs so they naturally speak their tongue.

That's a pretty dim view of intellectuals. There are plenty of jobs for biologists, climatoligists and so forth, for example in private agriculture or research and development.

Same thing as how priests were used to justify divine right of rulers.

No its not. These are scientists not priests.

 

[PiMan]

The existence of government has public support from the vast majority of people, with or without "propaganda". And with most democratic countries having one or more political parties who dispute the global warming consensus, the government can continue to exist with or without global warming (which is the topic at hand).

Oil companies on the other hand, rely almost entirely on the continued use and availability of oil (funny that). If they can't convince people that global warming is either false or perfectly natural then their very existence is threatened.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I dunno much about the global warming and issues involved thing at all to be honest so cant comment on that, just made the thread for ****s and giggles

Good to know we have a solid base for discussion then.

 

[classical_hero]

The existence of government has public support from the vast majority of people, with or without "propaganda". And with most democratic countries having one or more political parties who dispute the global warming consensus, the government can continue to exist with or without global warming (which is the topic at hand).

Oil companies on the other hand, rely almost entirely on the continued use and availability of oil (funny that). If they can't convince people that global warming is either false or perfectly natural then their very existence is threatened.

I think the less we can use oil the better, whether climate change is man made or not, the better it will be, since too much money is going to nations that are not democratic.

 

[luiz]

I don't think it goes that far. Personally, I think that they amount to clear evidence of trying to push an agenda: that the science is being done to try and prove warming and control the spread of information, not as a dispassionate analysis of data to try and disprove a hypothesis.

The most disturbing is the discussions on how to keep secptics out of peer reviewed literature, and how to keep any dissenting views out of the IPCC.

There is a good summary of some of the e-mails here.

Indeed!
The IPCC is a political body composed of people with an interest to "prove" that the world is getting dangerously warmer because of human action. It is not a dispassionate and objective scientific body, as it should be.

While these emails do not disprove anthropogenic global warming, they do show how politics are interfering with science on the field of climatology. And unlike popular perception, it is not through the lobby of industrial conglomerates trying to prove that there is no warming, but rather of the "Global Warming Industry", which generates many jobs and tens of billions of dollars worth of revenue, and thus the people who benefit from it are desperate to silence dissent and push forward a scientific consensus that simply does not exist, nor could exist with the amount of information we have.

 

[aelf]

Indeed!
The IPCC is a political body composed of people with an interest to "prove" that the world is getting dangerously warmer because of human action. It is not a dispassionate and objective scientific body, as it should be.

While these emails do not disprove anthropogenic global warming, they do show how politics are interfering with science on the field of climatology. And unlike popular perception, it is not through the lobby of industrial conglomerates trying to prove that there is no warming, but rather of the "Global Warming Industry", which generates many jobs and tens of billions of dollars worth of revenue, and thus the people who benefit from it are desperate to silence dissent and push forward a scientific consensus that simply does not exist, nor could exist with the amount of information we have.

So you're implying that industrial conglomerates have smaller vested interests than climatologists, to whom the benefits of 'winning' are far less tangible?

It's much easier to continue with old established ways than come up with and adapt to new ones. So maybe the fact that industrial conglomerates don't really try to counter these scientists is because what the latter say is, by and large, true, and not because they are winning in some sort of a deceitful political game? I just don't see how and why the industrial conglomerates would surrender if this is merely a battle of propaganda.