I am a climate change expert, I have worked extensively with climate change scientists. I am downloading this information to read through it myself, I will post here with my findings.

edit:

For a balanced perspective I would very strongly suggest you read RealClimate's response to this matter.

edit 2:

I have been sifting through the files, but with 4,500+ files, including thousands of emails spanning 13 years, large word documents, pdfs and even what appear to be raw database files, this is not going to be an easy task, I imagine it will be months before we have a clear picture of what is contained in this leak.

edit 3:

Most of the emails contain nothing of real value; some of them are out of office replies and social correspondences. But then some of them contain the raw data used for the IPCC millennium predictions, it is the leaking of this data that will very likely have the largest scientific value in this leak. As far as dispute about climate science goes, most of what I am seeing is legitimate scientific questions of specific data points and methodologies, I haven’t found any large scale attempt to influence the end results. I will continue looking into this.

edit 4:

It is possible this particular organization may be guilty of some misconduct, I do not have sufficient proof at this point, none of us do, but given the tone and content of some of the emails I would support further enquiry. However, even if that were the case, it would not indicate a global conspiracy, it would only indicate a small group of self interested individuals attempting to ensure funding at the expense of their integrity. The reality is that none of these alleged attempts to undermine the peer review process or stop certain papers from being published, if that is what they were, ever succeeded.

The data itself does not contradict global warming, at best there are anomalous data points or methodologies that may need readjusting, there may even be additional datasets to consider, but none of this is a scientific disproval of the overwhelming body of evidence.

I am no corporate shill, yes climate change funding has paid my wages in the past, but I quite honestly wish it didn't have to, if I could do anything to make climate change not be real, believe me I would. I welcome any good news! I am not trying to keep my job, I would be far happier if there didn't have to be climate change experts, I would much rather have a world to retire to than a retirement fund in a ravaged world.

A couple of things of interest in the emails.

"The fact that satellite and weather balloon measurements in the lower troposphere do not show a warming for the past 21 years suggests strongly that the surface data are influenced by proximity to human habitation, rather than by greenhouse warming"

"Our global Carbon Cycle Model reveals a half-life time of only 38 years for any CO2 excess. With present constant global CO2 emission until 2100, the temperature would only further increase by 0.15 °C. Scenario IS92a would end up with 571 ppm only. IPCC assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than being available. Using a flawed eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Hardly coping with biomass response, limited fossil reserves and using a factor 4 temperature sensitivity, all this leads to an IPCC exaggeration factor of about 6 in yr 2100. The usable fossil reserves of 1300 GtC burnt by 2090, merely cause 548 ppm – not even a doubling. The WRE 650, 750 and 1000 ppm scenarios, projected until 2300, are infeasible. Emission reduction is absolutely useless: the realistic temperature effect of Kyoto till 2050 will be only 0.02 °C."

"This individual review paper focuses on IPCC's three most essential modelling and core parameter errors. The impacts on all modelling results would be so tremendous that if the TAR would be corrected for these errors, there would hardly be any more justification for it. So this paper addresses only few individual TAR fallacies, but focuses on the nondisclosed flawed science it is"

"It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO."

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998."

Realclimate.org was named in some emails as being part of the fraud and has now gone into damage control.

Watch out for the massive spin job coming. Read the emails first before commenting.

surface data are influenced by proximity to human habitation, rather than by greenhouse warming"

Absolutely, there is a lot of evidence for city heat bubbles and landscape alteration resulting in changes in the local climate. It does not however have to be only one or the other, the two processes feed off and exacerbate each other.

Emission reduction is absolutely useless: the realistic temperature effect of Kyoto till 2050 will be only 0.02 °C."

Again, this is not new, there is a lag in the effect of CO2 on temperatures of about fifty years. Emission cuts will have almost no effect on the next fifty years, cuts now effect the fifty years after that.

the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalization agenda driven by organisations like the WTO."

Yet again, not new. Given any climate cuts have to be global, and that we have no global government, trade is the global method chosen to try and establish a global solution, of course the WTO is implicetly involved in those global trade negotiations.

to hide the decline.

Firstly, do you actually know what they are talking about? What is declining here? What is the series they are talking about? Have you considered that in combining various different methodologies there may be circumstances in which you may need to overlay the warming trend of one dataset over the warming trend of another dataset? I am sorry, this is not the admission of guilt you intend it to be.

Realclimate.org was named in some emails as being part of the fraud and has now gone into damage control.

I offered their response to provide a balanced view, I believe it is called the right of reply.

listen, I will level with you. As a climate science organization you have two jobs, collecting the data and then conveying that information to allow for meaningful outcomes. In a prevailing climate of fiscal and social conservatism it is very difficult to convince everyone that what you are saying is actually the case. This makes the second part of your job particularly difficult. To this end you quite often have to approach from another direction, either softening the blow or stressing the case. On the international stage it was decided (rightly or wrongly) that the message had to be watered down to gain universal acceptance, this is what the IPCC and Kyoto do. Their entire function is to be an easier pill to swallow, trying to get conservatives on side by giving them small targets and then gradually increasing the targets. So yes, the IPCC does not reflect reality, it never has, and kyoto is largely useless, indeed carbon taxes work the same way. They are a way of getting the frog in the pot so you can gradually turn up the heat.

I wish it didn't work this way, just like I wish the banks didn't heartlessly rule everything in the pursuit of profit, but the reality is, if you want to actually achieve anything you often need to make compromises and work within the flawed system you are given. Unfortunately this often looks like you are in collusion with the powers that be, that is because you are, you have to be. If the world is ruled by someone, you can't change the world without working with the guys in charge, that doesn't automatically make your cause part of their original plan. Yes, those bastards will find some way of working it into their plan, they'll find some way of making money off anything, but that is better than doing nothing.

Things are not going well, for whatever reason, the climate is changing more than it ever has before. We have put our best minds on the job of figuring out how bad it will get, and the answer almost universally comes back "bad to horrible", none of us want this to be true, some people go into denial, some people get angry, some people look for any proof to the contrary they can find.

I can't convince you of anything, only you can do that. If I can help at all, let me know.

Thank you for a reasonable and educated post amongst this shitstorm of adolescent raging.

the reality is, if you want to actually achieve anything you often need to make compromises and work within the flawed system you are given. Unfortunately this often looks like you are in collusion with the powers that be, that is because you are, you have to be. If the world is ruled by someone, you can't change the world without working with the guys in charge, that doesn't automatically make your cause part of their original plan. Yes, those bastards will find some way of working it into their plan, they'll find some way of making money off anything, but that is better than doing nothing.

Indeed, well put.

The conspiracy theorists are suspicious that the environmental movement has been co-opted by globalists who have the ultimate aim of establishing a One World Government.

That is not to say that global warming/cooling, pollution, emissions, logging, CFC's and desertification are not real, or that environmentalism isn't important and necessary. That is not really the argument. The conspiracy theorists argue that these genuine concerns have been used as a political tool by "The Conspiracy" to divide and conquer, fearmonger, and to further their global government agenda.

The Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, published documents in the 1970's that suggested that for a world government to be established, a global enemy must be found. And they concluded that the ideal global enemy is mankind itself:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

Members of the Club of Rome include Al Gore, Ted Turner, Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair, David Rockefeller and Bill Clinton.

http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

Given their stated agenda to politicize the issues of mankind's impact on the environment to further global governance... we have a right to be skeptical of the propaganda surrounding these issues.

"A radical change from the current trajectory is required, a complete reordering of global society..."

"Humans only truly unite when faced with a powerful external enemy..."

"At this time a new enemy must be found, one either real or invented for the purpose..."

"Democracy has failed us, a new system of global governance, based on environmental imperatives, must be implemented quickly..."

You absolutely have every right to be skeptical of everything that is told to you, and I honestly would not even be surprised if that plan was indeed the case. However, I am not an expert in secret global government cabals, I am an expert in climate change.

Whether they exploit it or not, things are getting bad, and it is abundantly clear, even just from chopping down forests, that humans are responsible for changing the climate. If we do not take drastic preventative and preparative actions, we are going to be in serious trouble.

These leaked documents do nothing to contradict that. If you want to debate the plans we should use or the actions we should take, that is great, that is the discussion we need to be having, that is how we stop corporate interests from dominating the solutions. But continuing to question what is as blatantly and immediately obvious as millions of acres of desert that was once farmland, debating whether humans change our climate, does nothing to help any of us.

A fair balanced reply........... let us know when you get through the emails, love to hear your conclusions.

The thing people don't like about the debate is the fact they just want to use taxation as a solution, should the solution be based on removing the coal and oil industries, as hard as that may be they have to go, and at the same time corporations are wiping out thousands of acres daily of co2 breathing rainforest, seams hypocritical to most

I certainly will.

I suggested reading their response to provide a balance for Andrew Bolt, who is also a well known "propaganda mouthpiece".

If you are going to report on a story you should, in all good concience, provide all sides of a story as clearly as possible, regardless of whether you personally agree with them or not.

For real? Cool!

Protip - good science dose not have believers or deniers because it does not need them.

True, although I always guessed that climate change deniers were puppets of an energy industry that doesn't want to go gentle into that good night. They're rich and powerful enough to invent their own science.

But I'm definitely rethinking some shit after seeing this article...things could get interesting real soon.

Certain aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control.

http://www.green-agenda.com

The problem for energy companies is not climate change. It is peak oil.

If anything, this thing was popularized as a more palatable, understandable way to "sell" the end of fossil fuels to the masses.

Why would you have to sell the end of fossil fuels to the masses? Do you think people are in love with smoggy and smelly cities? Loud truck engines?

Are you serious? They aren't only in love they are addicted!

Good science doesn't have believers or deniers?

I'm not sure about that.

good point; how about -

Religions are based upon believers or deniers, not good science.

or

Good science isn't based upon the number of believers or deniers because it does not need them.

or

A red flag for bad science is when the debate is about the number of believers.

How about this:

Science is based on evidence, while religion is based on shit that's totally made up. At present, most of what people "know" is in the category of "religion," and incidentally "what they are told from TV," but this is only a rule of thumb, not a conclusive proof, that a popularly held belief is wrong.

Or, maybe, "Good science doesn't need believers or deniers to validate it."

I'll go for that. It's still awfully depressing when it doesn't have believers, though.

Perfectly worded!

false

Oh yes, just like the earth is not the center of the universe, or it's flat, or string theory or every other new revelation or theory that doesn't agree with the traditional views. For a protip, that has to be one of the less thought out pieces of advice ever.

This will be interesting to watch.

The only thing I see in this thread is a bunch of idiots spouting off about how this apparently disproves the mountains of evidence that support global warming.

I tried mentioning not to commit the "fallacy fallacy" and got downvoted, called a religious fanatic, in denial, and unable to think for 10 seconds for it, in this very post. Then called childish - this place is a real bastion of reason.

You guys aren't looking to have a rational conversation here, you're taking everyone who is looking at this and asking if this really suggests global warming is a complete hoax and ganging up on them in a huge pile of bigoted bullshit.

If you came here because this story does interest you, but you're not interested in hearing a bunch of dumbasses who seem convinced this means global warming is entirely a complete hoax, head over to the submission in another reddit that gives a more rational response to this unfortunate revelation of the questionably sketchy tactics of a few scientists:

http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/a6i5g/breaking_hadley_cru_emails_hacked_they_show_an/

-OR-

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/a6kcb/

Or just downvote this post in complete ignorance because you now have reason to rationalize why you think everyone who thinks global warming is a problem is a religious nutcase (???), and you'd rather silence somebody for questioning your rash conclusions all while criticizing them for not liking to be questioned, I don't care.

(P.S. Actually, try to upvote this, so people can see it and be redirected to the other link, as what I'm saying is pissing a lot of these guys off and they're downvoting it thusly).

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

• Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

• Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

• Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."

• Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

• Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

Now on to the Club of Rome.

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

• Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

• Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

• Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.

"Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

"[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance."

"The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security."

• Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore's mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome.

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."

• Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world's first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world's central carbon trading body.

Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors for CCX.

Back before he became U.S. President Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation when it gave CCX nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he then steered steered through Congress.

“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."

• Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

• David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum and donated the land on which the United Nations stands. Speaking at a U.N. Business Conference, Sept. 14, 1994

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

• David Rockefeller, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure 'one world', if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

• David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

Other Club of Rome members include Tony Blair, George Soros Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Javier Solana, Kofi Annan, Bill Gates, The Dalai Lama, Hassan bin Talal, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Gro Harlem Bruntland, Robert Muller, Garret Hardin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and his wife Queen Sophia, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Prince Philippe of Belgium and many more people that include wealthy elites, 'new age spiritualists', former or current world political figures and former or current U.N. figures.

See this link for much more! - http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

Additional Information

Agenda 21 & the Club of Rome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4aD3_tJNsc

Agenda 21 for a U.N. Dictatorship pt.1/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axuDes2bb1Y

Agenda 21 for a U.N. Dictatorship pt.2/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8lz7KZdK3Q

Watch Lord Christopher Monckton (Former Adviser to Margaret Thatcher) Speaking in St. Paul on the real purpose of the Copenhagen Treaty - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0

Beware the UN's Copenhagen plot - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/beware-the-uns-copenhagen-plot/story-e6frg6qx-1225791869745

One World Government The Real Aim of Environmentalism - http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16694

The Marxist roots of the global warming scare - http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/080616

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story - http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

This site has indisputable evidence providing references of their own admission to what the real agenda is - http://green-agenda.com/

Club of Rome's Depopulation Agenda

"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."

• Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974

"… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”

• Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind, 1976.

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."

• Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb. Paul Ehrlich is a member of the Club of Rome.

"I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today”

“We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”

• Dave Foreman, Co-founder of Earth First! and member of the Club of Rome.

“World population needs to be decreased by 50%”

• Henry Kissinger, , Former National Security Advisor, Former Secretary of State, chairman of Kissinger Associates, member of the Club of Rome.

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

• Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

• Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor, member of the Club of Rome.

In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.

• Jacques Cousteau, French naval officer and explorer. Member of the Club of Rome.

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

• Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, member of the Club of Rome.

Is it bad that deep, deep down I feel pain for what humans are doing to nature and I feel that there needs to be a decrease of 50% even if I am one of them to go?

Upvoted for rationality. It kind of hurts to have the discussion divided though. I want the best on both sides to be in the same thread -- then people can hear the best arguments.

[deleted]

Oh sorry, was I not clear enough for you?: This place is fucking retarded. Go to the other reddit if you want actual discussion.

There.

"This place is a real bastion of reason." Next post: "This place is fucking retarded."

Yes, clearly this is a real bastion of reason.

[deleted]

If I downvote this comment will you spaz out again and start ranting about how everyone in this subreddit is a right-wing fucking retard?

Because that was hilarious.

A++++ would troll again.

I thought they replaced 'warming' with 'climate change'?

This is /r/conspiracy, they enjoy believing stupid things, they're mental gymnasts on the level of Sarah Palin.

I'd like to see a little more investigation into this before people start discounting all evidence of global warming. There's manipulation on both sides of the argument and there's the remote possibility that the story is made-up or the data was planted. Leaving a small carbon footprint is still a good idea. Before global warming was even on MSM radar I remember seeing signs at camping parks basically telling you to take out what you brought in, and to leave things the way you found them.

You certainly can, but without the right applications to open the raw data files, and without a glossry of terms, context, or any training in the subject matter, the opinions you form will not nessecarily have any bearing on reality.

There is undoubtedly big data in this leak, but that does not mean joe sixpack can form an informed scientifically sound opinon by reading about a scientist's travel itinerary.

You can't, really. You can start, but you have to keep context regarding all these discussions, or it just becomes the equivalent of Glenn Beck.

Wow, and apparently it's become Rush Limbaugh: http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200051

mediamatters is funded by George Soros who is a member of the Club of Rome, the globalist thinktank that in the late 1970's recommended politicizing environmental concerns in order to establish a One World Government. (Yes, really.)

Other members of the Club of Rome include Al Gore, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller.

http://www.green-agenda.com

Please read and learn the background of the conspiracy theories surrounding global warming.

I'm reading and learning the background of your conspiracy theories just fine. :)

The man made global warming movement is a political and economic movement, not a scientific one. The goal is to get everyone to pay a carbon tax. It's a massive scam. Go ahead and reduce your 'carbon footprint' if you want to feel some smug reward from the climate change scam profiteers, just know that a bunch of us understand what it's really about.

Al Gore stands to become a billionaire as a major cog in the "cap and trade/carbon tax credits" arena. Coincidence?

I have had a bellyful of "coincidences" and "mistake" stories from the US government since 9/11/01 to date. Enough. Let's have some truth. That would be a change I can believe in.

How does someone downvote this? I guess its a habit for some people.

Because it sounds like the rantings of a deranged sociopath.

There's manipulation on both sides of the argument

Laughable at best.

Really. Please do explain.

Thank you.

This is explained here

The explanation is further down:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Yeah. And what's interesting that that this source is completely conceding that the bulk of the emails are unmodified and accurate.

Kinda hard, if not impossible, to go back and verify 180Megs of email.

But never mind. Go on trying to convince us there's no global warming and we shouldn't use less fossil fuel. After all, you should get paid for your work.

I'm not trying to convince you there's no global warming. I don't think these emails demonstrate. I think that the explanations which have been given for the quoted emails are generally pretty reasonable. And yeah, there are a lot of reasons to use less fossil fuels.

Nevertheless, I stand by my statement that the source strongly implies that they have reviewed some portion of the emails and have found no evidence of tampering. I will be surprised if faked emails turn up.

And while I am willing to sell my soul / karma, there are as of yet no bidders on my "talent", so I remain unpaid for my "work".

I don't see where it says that. You'd have to be superhuman to verify that in the timescale involved.

Downmodded for lying.

You're right. My claim was too strong. Nevertheless, they acknowledge specifically a number of emails which they know to be valid and unmodified (like the first one they sent out) and they made no claims that any of the emails they saw were tampered with. So, while there is certainly a possibility that some of the emails were modified, statistically speaking I think we can safely say (as long as we assume that they can verify incorrectness ~ as easily as correctness (which appears to me to be logical, since any modifications would have to be about as easy to spot as correctness (since to know correctness you must have records for that sender / recipient which means that if there's anything for that sender / recipient that is incorrect, you can spot it))) that judging by their sample, they have strong evidence that the majority of the emails are unmodified.

tl;dr: I think this source demonstrates that the bulk of the emails are unmodified and accurate.

No it is not. It is evidence that data is manipulated, which is a very important distinction. If you a graph showing the number of cheeseburgers sold over the past tne years, and a graph showing the number of hamburgers sold over the same period, producing a graph which combines the two, to whow the total number of hamburgers sold, is data manipulation, but it is not falsification.

How did they manipulate my memory of summers getting hotter and dryer for the last 20 years or so. How did they get those trees in my yard to die in some of those summers. How did they get me to misremember my water bill doubling later as I tried to save the remaining trees, and misremember those weeks of over 100 degress, in JUNE, and ninety degree temperatures in December.

Man, they must be good.

How did they manipulate those NASA satellite pictures of the ice at the north pole melting?

That was a neat trick.

Not really hangly, it seems that you are trying to produce the data you want to see rather than looking at the data in front of you.

What do we actually know from this email?

What is Mike's nature trick? what is the "series" they are adding the "real" data to? What decline are they hidin? We do not know.

In a confdential informal internal email it is possible they were using terms very loosely or with a specific meaning. For instance, if we sold original cheeseburgers, and cheeseburgers with gerkin, I might call the original cheeseburgers "real", but that doesn't mean the ones with gerkin were falsified.

By the same token, "hide" may be used with any number of intents, it is possible it was intended to mean "obscure" or "replace".

I am not saying I know what happened, and I am not saying they are innocent, I am saying that none of us know, this is not the absolute proof of guilt you are putting it forward as.

We simply do not know what they are talking about.

Al Gore must be PISSED

For me, this is a resounding "I fucking told you so" to all the man made global warming fear mongering alarmists.

Really? For me it's just a couple of scientists talking about data reduction techniques out of context, which may or may not be bad science and are certainly worthy of serious inquiry.

Of course, I'm not so stupid as to make a huge leap of logic to suggest that one simple set of scientists fudging numbers suggests the entire academic field that seems to overwhelmingly support said theory are completely false at whim of a few cheating scientists.

Pardon me for not jumping to conclusions on simple whims, but I guess that's just the tantamount philosophy behind /r/conspiracy.

I'll just meander off in my denial, delusion, and religious fanatacism.

It seems others have already answered your questions. I'll just simply put it this way: it's not surprising to me, after learning and following the scientific evidence, that man made global warming alarmists repressed dissenting opinion and fudged their evidence. Does that sound more like a scientific code of conduct or a political campaign?

I say "I told you so" because the climate alarmists fudged their evidence and attempted to repress any dissenting opinions. That's how the man made global warming hysteria was so successful.

"I'm not so stupid to make a huge leap of logic... Pardon me for not jumping to conclusions on simple whims, but i guess [insert unsubstantiated conclusion and huge leap of logic]"

No, clearly you're not that stupid. : - )

[deleted]

No it isn't actually.

[deleted]

What about those who already concluded global warming is a man-made fiction, prior to the scientists fudged data being exposed?

Is it possible that some people in /r/conspiracy have been "deniers" all along, and this latest information only adds fuel to the fire?

I'm amazed how butthurt you are by all of this. Did you just give up smoking or something? Alcohol withdrawal? Weed dude won't return your calls?

You should hang around /r/conspiracy more. We used to have a lot more angry "YOU ARE ALL FUCKING RETARDED" trolls. Lately they have been disappointingly friendly and calm. (I'm looking at you cyince.)

green-agenda.com has completely exposed the global warming scam. I'd like to see you read the vast evidence that it's a scam laid out at that website and then come back and try and tell me it isn't bullshit.

I think the paranoid warmist doom's day loons have been watching too many movies like the Day After Tomorrow and think the sky is falling and then they shout their cultic beliefs of protecting "gaia/mother earth" at all costs.

evidence that it's a scam laid out at that website

I'd much rather prefer peer-reviewed scholarly publishings, preferably in a journal on climate.

Simple website testimonial may be enough for somebody willing to believe batshit stupid things, but not for me.

Leading IPCC Global Warming Proponent Prof. Mojib Latif who is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations IPCC, contributing significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously, has now conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists+pull+about+face+global+warming/2010571/story.html

Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Tell me again how man-made global warming isn't bullshit?

Tell me again how man-made global warming isn't bullshit?

I concede, you clearly know your shit, and I'm just stupid. Global warming is man-made, this one single person seems to think so, and thus, the hundreds of other scientists that disagree are wrong.

It isn't just Latif either.

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Clearly there isn't a consensus on Global Warming within the scientific community.

The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel.

"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda."

• MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Czech President Klaus stated “It is not fair to refer to the UN panel as a group of scientists. The IPCC is not a scientific institution. It's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavour. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists, and UN bureaucrats, who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.”

he Global Warming Petition Project has been signed by more than 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9,000 with PhDs. Signers include world renowned physicists such as Prof. Edward Teller and Prof. Freeman Dyson. Nearly 4,000 signers are scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

The petition states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Proclaiming that “climate change is real” is a nonsensical statement and ignores the Earth’s continual natural warming and cooling cycles. Vikings settled in Greenland and raised crops and cattle 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, Greenland froze and the Vikings starved. Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age. The Thames froze all the way up to London. Another surge in temperatures saw widespread global droughts in the mid-1600s. Temperatures plunged again around 1700’s. The globe warmed in 1800-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed again. The 1940-1975 cooling period occurred despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about Global Cooling, and the threat of a new ice age.

Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations. Scientists have discovered that the sun not only has a regular 11 year cycle of sunspot activity. They have now discovered a significant 200 year cycle. Sunspot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature changes on the Earth. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising very fast. The increase in solar radiation prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.

Other recent studies, published in Nature and other leading journals, conclude that the sun’s radiant heat and solar radiation levels affect planetary warming and cloud formation more strongly than acknowledged by Global Warming alarmists. After all, why would natural forces that caused the climate to change in past centuries suddenly stop now? And how does man-made Global Warming explain why every planet in our solar system appears to be simultaneously warming up? Does this not suggest that Global Warming is a natural cycle as a result of the dynamic nature of the sun?

”Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists: Astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.”

• Space.com

”Global Warming on Mars? A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend. If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.”

• National Geographic

“NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across - or two-thirds Earth's diameter.”

• New Scientist

"Global Warming Detected on Triton: At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming,"

confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.

"Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."

“New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change: The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.”

• Space.com

“The Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research published in the prestigious science journal Nature.”

• London Telegraph

Apart from ignoring the giant ball of fire in the sky, Global Warming alarmists also overlook a few other inconvenient truths. They ignore the fact the natural emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere far exceed human contributions. In fact humans contribute a measly 0.035% of the total annual carbon flux. Any system that can be perturbed by such a tiny fluctuation would be very unstable indeed. They also ignore the fact that water vapour is by far the most dominant greenhouse gas. The atmosphere consists of 40,000 ppm of water vapour, whereas carbon dioxide weighs in at a miniscule 380 ppm. Instead they rely on dubious computer models that the IPCC itself admits exclude complex parts of the climate system that they don’t yet understand.

This is one of the main climatologists that has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports and he's now saying that his previous claims are false. So how are much of those reports still reliable when the guy who wrote much of it is now saying the opposite?

This is one of the main climatologists

No such thing as a "main climatologist."

But it'd be easy for you if you could suggest that this one man represents the whole of climatology. Obviously, you have absolutely no clue how science works.

I meant one of the leading climatologists on the IPCC reports.

The point is that clearly there isn't a consensus on Global Warming within the scientific community.

The point is that clearly there isn't a consensus on Global Warming within the scientific community.

No, the point is that you think this is something that needs to be mentioned reveals how little you know about the scientific community. It's actually very common to have people hold contrary points of view within the community.

There is something you don't want to realize: that there are still lots and lots of scientists who back up AGW. Instead, you see one scientist who doesn't, or a few, and conclude the whole scientific community is working on a hoax.

Perhaps you should publish a paper about it, if you've got such profound insights.

It isn't just leading IPCC author Latif.

Climatologists Are Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

Also read my other post.

lol that guy is really wound tight.

"Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!"

Unfortunately, in this case (as with many others), people will ignore or attempt to discredit information that does not confirm their bias. Whether or not the emails are fake, or altered, or whatever, it is certainly an interesting development on the issue.

Whether man made global warming is real or not does not depend on this case. The fact that the average temperature for the global atmosphere has decreased since 1998 means there is no global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

Those emails don't look fake. We'll see for sure, but if that's fake then I don't know what's real.

The fact that the average temperature for the global atmosphere has decreased since 1998 means there is no global warming.

That's an extremely naive and unscientific way of viewing things.

Could you show me this parallel universe that you live in where a decrease in global atmospheric temperature over ten years means that there is global warming?

Well it just got 5 degrees warmer outside in the past 6 hours, therefore we've got global warming on a massive scale!

"Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!"

The fact that the average temperature for the global atmosphere has decreased since 1998 means there is no global warming.

Yeah, because 11 years on a four billion year old planet really constitutes a trend. Moron.

but somehow 30 years up constitutes an up trend?

Moron.

Who's arguing that? I think both sides of this "debate" are equally retarded. Everything I've learned from my EAS (earth and atmospheric sciences) classes, and archeological anthropology classes says that for the last few hundred thousand years we've been in a general cooling trend. Who knows what the true "trend" is? What length of time defines a "trend"?

And that is what the deniers are arguing - that we really don't know, and to act as if we do is a bad idea.

HAHA. I would be mad too if I fell for a scam. You know as well as I that the planet being on a cooling trend for 11 years makes you look like a fool.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."

You got played like a bitch.

Well, firstly, you said global temperature decreased since 1998. Now you're saying we have "not observed any increase..." Get your facts straight.

And again, I ask, how fucking stupid do you have to be to believe 11 years on a four billion year old planet constitutes a trend?

"Well, firstly, you said global temperature decreased since 1998. Now you're saying we have "not observed any increase..." Get your facts straight."

Uhhhh...what? There's nothing wrong with what I said. Yeah, the global temperature has decreased over the past 11 years, therefore the global temperature has not increased over the past 11 years, therefore we have not observed any increase in temperature over the past 11 years. You're a retard. Really, if you have any pride in yourself, you should feel really stupid right now.

"And again, I ask, how fucking stupid do you have to be to believe 11 years on a four billion year old planet constitutes a trend?"

How long is a trend?

Bringing up the age of the planet works in the advantage of man made global warming propaganda skeptics. We live on a 4 Billion year old planet. The Industrial Revolution happened almost 260 years ago. That's a very skewed ratio of 40,000,000 / 2.6 (40 million / 2.6). Compare the ratio of 40,000,000/2.6 with 400,000,00/1. Both of those ratios are ridiculous. So perhaps 260 years on a 4 billion year old planet is not long enough to determine a trend if 10 years is not long enough to determine a trend.

This is the point: If industrialization was the cause of the warming, then it would have to be so significant that, out of nowhere, the planet could not experience 11 years of cooling. This could only happens if the warming was mostly due to natural causes like solar output.

Seriously, you're a clown. You've been played SO hard, and it's all because you're dumb enough to be played by political scams. Al Gore is one smart man, for it takes a smart man to manipulate so many dumb people like you and make lots of money from it.

"Not decreas[ing]" and "increasing" are very different things, fuckwit.

And before you get your oh-so-sensitive panties in a knot, maybe take a look around for what I said when someone replied "Oh, but 30 years constitutes a trend?"

Me:

Who's arguing that? I think both sides of this "debate" are equally retarded. Everything I've learned from my EAS (earth and atmospheric sciences) classes, and archeological anthropology classes says that for the last few hundred thousand years we've been in a general cooling trend. Who knows what the true "trend" is? What length of time defines a "trend"?

Now for this little gem,

If industrialization was the cause of the warming, then it would have to be so significant that, out of nowhere, the planet could not experience 11 years of cooling.

You talk like you're somehow anything more than a fat kid typing on a computer in your parents' basement. Show me the studies that say "If industrialization was the cause of the warming, then it would have to be so significant that, out of nowhere, the planet could not experience 11 years of cooling."

Listen, you fucking monkey, the earth has gone through worldwide ice ages and scorching worldwide drought over and over again cyclically before humans, before mammals, even existed. If you think 11 years proves anything, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

"You talk like you're somehow anything more than a fat kid typing on a computer in your parents' basement."

Actually, it's my uncles basement. And I'm 49-years-old. And unemployed. And over 400 pounds. So technically I'm more than just a fat kid, I'm a 400 pound fat man child.

But now for some seriousness.

"the earth has gone through worldwide ice ages and scorching worldwide drought over and over again cyclically before humans, before mammals, even existed."

Yup, that's why 260 years of industrial revolution is not the cause of the warming that had happened before the last 11 years. The last 11 years marks the beginning of THE NEW COOLING TREND.

Thanks for the entertainment. I'm sorry that you were played so hard. Actually, not really.

Yeah until we have one year of minutely above-average global temperatures and then your whole little theory goes to shit.

Are you intentionally dense, by the way? I just told you that for all intensive purposes, the last few HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS have been cool years. A few hundred years up or down have absolutely no sway in the grand scheme.

Keep telling me I got played though, when I'm actually not disagreeing with you. Also, keep thinking you understand things far bigger than your miniscule mind and with far greater time periods than you could ever comprehend because of a BBC article. Fucking monkey.

I'm happy the man made global warming fraud will lose steam and perhaps collapse altogether. It's likely that the work of these hackers might help prevent a global carbon tax that has been advocated by Al Gore and globalists in the UN.

The fact that you're anal really doesn't matter. A lot of people are figuring out that the man made global warming hysteria was a scam like I did a little over a year ago.

You cite no science for that. Where's the data? Take a look at this NASA temperatures graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

That information is actually false. The misconception comes from 1998 being an anomoulously warm year, so the years after it looked cooler, however the past ten years have still been far hotter than any other period in human history, the general trend has continued up since then, indeed 2005 was the hottest year in human history, 2009 may even exceed that record.

You're just making that up. No, 2005 was not the hottest year in human history. I'm getting a little tired of explaining it to people. Just read this article and then research for yourself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

"For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."

As one of those people who are saying "I told you so" to, could you please show me what part of this contradicts man made global warming?

If by "this" I assume you mean the information acquired from the emails that were hacked.

This particular case demonstrates that scientists involved in the man made global warming campaign were actively altering their 'evidence':

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

They also demostrate just how unscientific these people are, intentionally trying to avoid and silence dissenting views:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

I know that the man made global warming political campaign is not backed up by sound scientific evidence, so this doesn't surprise me at all.

For me as well. Carbon tax my ass.

http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/pdfs/annurev.marine.010908.pdf

US Army scientists show that things are WORSE than IPCC predicts.

But hey, I'm sure that Army scientists are in on the huge conspiracy too.

There are a lot more important things in this world to worry about than the mongering of "fear" that if we don't take care of the planet, we'll destroy it.

Logical Fallacy: The assumption that the man made global warming political movement is about taking care of the planet or preventing planetary destruction.

lol - "we will destroy the planet?" How big is your ego man?

"Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!"

You're trippin'

awesome news! I just read a comment I will quote here:

The OP is talking about people who believe something will happen on 12-21-2012:

"Because - like fundamentalist Christians and extreme right-wing lunatics, if you leave them alone long enough eventually they get organised, develop wealthy and political connections, and start campaigning to impress their favourite brand of lunacy on everybody else, by which time you're not fighting a few stupid ideas, but a whole social movement, backed up by millions of brain-washed morons with billions of dollars and their own purchased congress critters."

Sounds like an excellent description of the global warming movement.

if you leave them alone long enough

What are you going to do, shoot them? Besides, people who want to be left alone aren't typically going to be the ones trying to enslave everyone else.

[deleted]

He also uses the correct spelling of the term twice. i.e. it's a "typo".

Go play in traffic, please.

Give me a break

From article linked above: "More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though."

[deleted]

No one likes their religion to be questioned

Dude, don't even try to say global warming is similar to religion.

I'm a scientist, with that, I react quite well to scrutiny and questioning - I also act with scrutiny and questioning myself. Funny - that is exactly what I'm doing here, isn't it?

Dude! You're a scientist? Dude! That is so awesome!

Yes. My point in noting it was to suggest that I can be easily convinced to think otherwise given data, not without first scrutinizing said data. I'm not trying to gloat or appeal to authority or anything.

Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth sequel stresses spiritual argument on climate

In his latest book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis, the man who won a Nobel prize in 2007 for his touring slideshow on disappearing polar ice and other consequences of climate change, concludes: "Simply laying out the facts won't work."

Instead, Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message - now put out by hundreds of volunteers - to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate

WWJCT?

Dude, you're not a scientist.

[deleted]

Looks like all the climate scientists at:

* The national science academies of: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
* American Astronomical Society
* American Chemical Society
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* American Meteorological Society
* American Physical Society
* American Quaternary Association
* American Society for Microbiology
* American Statistical Association
* Australian Coral Reef Society
* Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* British Medical Association
* Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
* European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* European Federation of Geologists
* European Geosciences Union
* European Science Foundation
* Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
* Federation of American Scientists
* Geological Society of America
* Institute of Biology (UK)
* InterAcademy Council (representative of the worlds scientific and engineering academies)
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
* International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* International Union for Quaternary Research
* International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* International Union of Geological Sciences
* NASA
* National Research Council (US)
* Network of African Science Academies
* Polish Academy of Sciences
* Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
* Royal Society of New Zealand
* Society of American Foresters
* Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
* The editorships of Science, Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist
* The Joint Science Academies
* The Royal Society (UK)
* The Wildlife Society (international)
* World Meteorological Organization

are out of a job too, then.

Damn these few number pushing scientists!!!!

[deleted]

[deleted]

The Global Warming movement is just like a religion in almost every way, you just believe your "evidence"(faith) is stronger than other peoples "evidence" that justify their beliefs.

The fact that it upsets you so much to even be questioned, is the exact same reaction religious fanatics have when you question their beliefs.

That is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've read.

For one, evidence is not taken on faith, more often than not, it's taken on the credibility of scientists, which usually seems to be on good grounding. Obviously, any proponent of alternative energy (etc) would be dismayed by this if it were true - however, one sect of scientists reporting false information does not refute the credibility of other scientists and other data.

To reduce that to being religious whim is a reductionist point of view only the most ignorant must profess.

The fact that it upsets you so much to even be questioned, is the exact same reaction religious fanatics have when you question their beliefs.

How is my questioning the validity of this information a sign that I am so upset about your "questioning?" With your accusation that I am no different than a religious nutjob simply because I questioned your point of view, it sounds to me like you deserve your trite criticism instead.

You're a complete tool.

The Royal Society, as a major part of the flowering of the tradition, was founded on the basis of scepticism. Its motto “On the word of no one” was a stout affirmation. Now suddenly, following their successful coup, the Greens have changed this motto of centuries to one that manages to be both banal and sinister – “Respect the facts.” When people start talking about “the facts” it is time to start looking for the fictions. Real science does not talk about facts; it talks about observations, which might turn out to be inaccurate or even irrelevant.

The global warmers like to use the name of science, but they do not like its methods. They promote slogans such a “The science is settled” when real scientists know that science is never settled. They were not, however, always so wise. In 1900, for example, the great Lord Kelvin famously stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Within a few years classical physics was shattered by Einstein and his contemporaries. Since then, in science, the debate is never closed.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

How many times are you going to call yourself reasonable and OK with others questioning you beliefs, while at the same time calling people idiots for doing just that?

You're generalizing an entire lot of scientists based on the actions of a sect of possibly corrupt individuals in Britain.

Have no doubt, if these emails are credible, the scientific community will jump on them almost instantly. The point, however, is that these few scientists do not represent the entirety of the scientific community doing research on climate science. And it's all-too-telling that you're consistently trying to portray the entirety of climate science on this image of Kelvin, who obviously was not the opinion of the many.

Your intentions are transparent, you're just using this example as rationalization to turn on full-retard.

Your intentions are transparent, you're just using this example as rationalization to turn on full-retard.

Name: Gravity13

Occupation: SCIENTIST

This thread is a good example of why I normally avoid debating climate denialists.

Proving they don't like their beliefs questioned.

[deleted]

LOL wow talk about projection.

Oh and name calling really helps you sound like a reasonable, scientific minded man.

Oh and name calling really helps you sound like a reasonable, scientific minded man.

Outright, bloody stupid idiot.

Being a scientist doesn't mean I need to adhere to being kind or respectable to blatant idiocy in an online messaging board.

WOW - this guy just keeps proving my point and sounds more and more like a fanatical religious extremist.

Since when was spouting off cuss words a sign of fanatical religiosity?

They serve well as diversions. The whole time, instead of addressing my points, you chastise me for calling poor poor you a fucking idiot.

Oh dear, I'm resorting to name-calling, surely I must be at my wits end, grasping for straws, dashing my eyes out in defeat, woe is me!

Idiot.

Hey there Gravity13

You should spend more time in /r/conspiracy debating with us poor idiotic non-scientists. I think you could certainly open up our eyes with your cool calm rationality and sober wit.

So what are you doing here Mr. Science Guy? Go do something more productive than arguing with the unwashed masses.

Because if they aren't real someone (or a very large group of someones) spent what must have been decades forging tens of thousands of emails.

I wouldn't put this past many people for a second. It's not really that difficult to forge material in order to create a viable conspiracy, given the politics of this issue, people tend to be more motivated to act. And it wouldn't take decades, I'd say, a week to a month.

Plus the scenario is completely plausible. It makes sense that an email server would be vulnerable from the internet. This happened to Diebold a few years back, remember?

Plausibility has never been reason to believe something is true.

I wouldn't put this past many people for a second. It's not really that difficult to forge material in order to create a viable conspiracy, given the politics of this issue, people tend to be more motivated to act. And it wouldn't take decades, I'd say, a week to a month.

So you're saying that it's plausible that all these emails are forged?

Plausibility has never been reason to believe something is true.

Very true, Scientist.

[deleted]

My cursory scanning of the comments in this thread suggest that you are the one reacting most harshly to questioning, Gravity13.

I posted a lengthy response for you here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/a6kxt/what_is_this_reddit_run_by_a_bunch_of_rightwing/

Please read and consider at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

A "Fucking Tool".

Agreed. I've upvoted you even though we're on opposite sides of the issue.

Lol two of the seven stages of denial represented in the above post.

1. No denial by CRU, which you'd expect to be forthcoming almost immediately if there were any holes in the story. Not definitive proof, but certainly makes it more credible.
2. No, but it means that government funding at least in the UK has been used to manufacture false positives in favor of climate change, which amounts to at least fraud and conspiracy. It certainly calls into question the "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and reopens the debate, which means several world leaders who spoke as if there was will be eating crow. Especially if they continue trying to push emissions caps or cap & trade schemes.

What motive would a government have to do this? Politicians usually couldn't care less about limiting pollution. And we should limit pollution whether global warming is real or not.

Gee, I wonder why government would want a catch all device to limit economic productivity in a precise manner if it becomes politically convenient for them to do so. It allows them a lot more control over political organizations that might be opposed to them or allow them to pick winners in certain industries, which I imagine would be similar to the listings of political donors that contribute to their campaign.

Lol two of the seven stages of denial represented in the above post.

Sure, call it denial. I call it skepticism and scrutiny. You know, what scientists are supposed to stand for?

Given the outcry that my questioning has brought up, I find it only too-ironic that people try to take the higher ground by suggesting I'm in denial or religious because I'm only questioning the information presented.

You can differentiate skepticism from denial very easily. Skepticism indicates a more neutral tone and some cursory thought about the matter which can't be reconciled without further information. Denial is throwing as much shit as possible without rhyme or reason and hoping some of it sticks.

For instance, the wording that global warming "isn't defeated." Very similar to: "You haven't seen the last of me, He-Man!" That's not indicative of healthy skepticism.

Skepticism indicates a more neutral tone and some cursory thought about the matter which can't be reconciled without further information. Denial is throwing as much shit as possible without rhyme or reason and hoping some of it sticks.

That's some utter bullshit. You're judging the rationality of a position based solely on the tone of the person speaking - there are people who speak with a vehement tone (like me) for personal effect. Go up to any physicist and tell him/her that quantum mechanics is completely wrong because it's based on probability, how many won't call you a fucking idiot? Are they just in denial?

Here - let's scrap your ridiculous quantification of "denial" and use an actual definition: the act of asserting that something alleged is not true

Now skepticism: A methodology that starts from doubt and aims to acquire certainty

Let's look at this again:

"I'm not sure of the validity of these emails."

"You're in denial!"

"Just because some people are in the wrong doesn't mean all people are in the wrong."

"You're in denial!!!"

• Fucking hell, do I really need to spell this out anymore?

The point is any person with a functional brain could have figured out in about 10 seconds that either the e-mails are real or have a very good chance of being real, so either you're intentionally obfuscating it because you're in denial (NOT being skeptical), or your unintentional bias is doing that for you.

Also your second point, "global warming is not defeated", is very clearly the product of a "us vs. them" emotional mentality, which is scientifically proven to happen instead of a reasoned, cognitive response when someone is exposed to a political ideology they feel strongly about (link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060713154704.htm) Your reasoning is all about grasping at any straws you can think of to discredit a mountain of evidence you desperately want not to be real and is pretty obvious. Otherwise you would have put in 5 seconds of thought in a purely skeptic response and asked different questions, although to be fair to you maybe you're just really stupid too.

The point is any person with a functional brain could have figured out in about 10 seconds that either the e-mails are real or have a very good chance of being real, so either you're intentionally obfuscating it because you're in denial (NOT being skeptical), or your unintentional bias is doing that for you.

Oy, I don't take these things on whim like you (that is to say, "they're real because they're real" isn't an argument I'm willing to take). I don't see how anybody in their right mind can presume these are real in 10 seconds just by looking at them - come the fuck on, you can't seriously be arguing this, can you?

Also your second point, "global warming is not defeated", is very clearly the product of a "us vs. them" emotional mentality

What?

which is scientifically proven to happen instead of a reasoned, cognitive response when someone is exposed to a political ideology they feel strongly about (link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060713154704.htm)

What the fuck? Are you fucking serious? You're reducing my pointing out that some scientists obscuring facts to make an argument not representing the entire scientific community backing AGW is based on an us vs. them emotional mentality?

You're joking, surely. Really.

I can't do this. /r/conspiracy, you have proven yourself to be outright stupid. Not just stupid, but a unique top-of-the-line brand of stupid.

Your reasoning is all about grasping at any straws you can think of to discredit a mountain of evidence you desperately want not to be real and is pretty obvious. Otherwise you would have put in 5 seconds of thought in a purely skeptic response and asked different questions, although to be fair to you maybe you're just really stupid too.

Dumbass, I didn't make any fucking arguments refuting or defending GW - Instead I simply ... oh fuck it, you're all a bunch of fucking stupid shit-for-brains douchebags. Let me know when you want to have an actual fucking conversation about the credibility of these claims (in other words, when 10 and/or 5 seconds worth of thought isn't your fucking argument as to why I should believe this stuff, what a fucking joke).

Instead I simply ... oh fuck it, you're all a bunch of fucking stupid shit-for-brains douchebags. Let me know when you want to have an actual fucking conversation about the credibility of these claims (in other words, when 10 and/or 5 seconds worth of thought isn't your fucking argument as to why I should believe this stuff, what a fucking joke).

First, you are clearly emotionally opposed r/conspiracy and the claims this thread makes. So having an actual conversation is going to be hard.

Second: The very fact that they changed their pws does lend some credibility to this being real. How do we know the emails are real? We don't, but we also don't know we arn't in the matrix. Don't start talking about 'knowing' shit.

Third: the Fallacy Fallacy. I like this point and I'm glad you raised it. The only context I'd like to add to that argument is that there has to be some level of influence from a) big business b) Gov't c) Money. Science isn't immune to these juggernauts. It isn't perfect, but it gets results.

WOW somebody didn't eat his Wheaties this morning.

I would like to have an actual fucking conversation about the credibility of global warming, not as a denier, but as a skeptic. I really don't know much about it, and with all the misinformation floating around, it's hard to know who to trust.

So is it true that the earth has been cooling for the last ten years?

I like the way you're using anger to defend your points instead of any reasonable basis. It lends much credibility to your claims of being objective.

Better than spouting off fallacy after fallacy like you...

I suppose if I thought about that for 10 seconds I'd understand. COME ON! IT'S SO EASY, THINK ABOUT FOR 10 SECONDS!!!!

Idiot.

Say this retarded shit in a subreddit besides /r/conspiracy and see what happens.

So I guess that's an admission you're invested emotionally in the subject and therefore can't argue on an objective basis then? Wow, you mean I was right from the very beginning? Who would have thought?

And wow, I wonder what will happen if I try to argue with others who are heavily emotionally invested in this subject just because it "sounds scientific" and will never be able to admit any possibility of wrongdoing for the global warming community. That sure is a hard one to figure out.

So I guess that's an admission you're invested emotionally in the subject and therefore can't argue on an objective basis then?

You sound like a teenager who has just picked up a book on common ways to suggest somebody is not being an effective speaker. What next, you'll talk about how I'm committing this or that fallacy?

No. Shut the fuck up. If I'm too invested emotionally to argue on an objective basis, than that's what it is. Given that we haven't even fucking argued about anything, I think you'd be pretty fucking stupid to think I can't present an objective basis here - in fact, I've presented no basis at all, simply questioning the validity of the presumptions of some dumbasses in this group.

Wow, you mean I was right from the very beginning?

Oh fucking suffocate yourself already. Clearly, I need to watch my language around juvenile demeanor like yours.

Beware not to wander out of /r/conspiracy, your trite shit might get raped.

You're the only one talking about fallacies, which in internet speak means "I have no answer for your accusations, so I'll try to pull you down to my level." I'm merely making observations of your mental state from extrapolating details from hints in your writing, all of which so far have been correct based off your reactions. And yeah, you're right, this isn't what one would consider "arguing", it's more like "an adult watching a child throw a tantrum because he missed his favorite TV show and can't go back and see it."

And you clearly can't argue on an objective basis because you would have already started by now. You took personal offense to the news story and can't budge a bit at the very obvious ramifications it presents, which throws a monkey wrench into arguments that those who have bought into global warming have used time and time again to defend it. If you were interested in arguing objectively, you would have conceded them already instead of using desperate defensive tactics that have no relation with the subject matter.

okay, I'm convinced, you're a complete dumbass.

/looks at your comment history

Oh, why did I even waste my time talking with shit like you?

Hahaha. I look forward to you staying in your hugbox where you can attack the credibility of anonymous sources and anything with a remote ambiguity with a bunch of other True Believers in abject misery instead of having to admit that maybe you were led by the nose by propaganda all along.

Stop responding to my posts.

Hahaha, you're in luck. Johnson and Johnson makes a "No More Tears" shampoo you may be interested in stemming the tidal flow from your eyeballs.

Mate, the people of /conspiracy dont have to use the work fuck in every sentence to provide a cogent arguement.

Until you can come up with a decent argument why don't you just shut the hell up.....

This is really silly. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world who have found corroborating data on warming for decades.

No one repository (like the Hadey Center) contains all the worlds science on this, to be hacked or otherwise. NASA, NOAA and all the other agencies are not sitting around waiting from some guy at Hadley to tell them what their data shows.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Get a grip, people.

This is interesting, but I'm confused as to why the data would need to be manipulated. Was there something to be gained by these fuckers? Did they own stock in 'green' energy companies or was this just some huge practical joke?

They get billions in funding for coming up with the right results. Also, many of them would probably be politically aligned with the left, the greens and all that. I'm all in favour of clean renewable energy, it makes sense. But I don't like being lied to.

There are many basic reasons why someone would do this, the most simple, and most probable is that they are like so many scientists who promote or at least back-up political agendas over truth to keep the grants coming in.

They simply want to pay their rent.

A lot of people do many things they normally wouldn't to keep their paycheck coming in.

I just think more money could have been pouring in if they had had opposite results.(In this case)

But then the world government would not have an excuse to tax carbon, you know, that same stuff we exhale with all our hot air. Since I've already stuck my neck out here, I'll go on to say that I'm a huge proponent of actual environmental sustainability, which mostly has to do with stopping all war-fare, not using all kinds of industrial toxins, and ensuring that most agriculture and animal husbandry is diverse, small scale and local.

So what about all this extra carbon that us humans have been tossing out into the atmosphere like confetti at a new years party? Why is it not warming the planet? I read a little article about this in, of all things, discover magazine, when I was about 12 sometime back in the late 80's. It talked about this, and the ice age that the earth is overdue on. It rang true for me then, I've never forgotten it or seen anything that made me think this was a false idea. It seems outlandish, however, what other explanations are there?

Any one for Tesla, secret weather control, and H.A.R.P working overtime?

Have the potential mysterious powers-that-be been "saving" us from the next Ice Age? All this considered or set to the side, why are glaciers melting at such a rate while the earth cools?

Have the potential mysterious powers-that-be been "saving" us from the next Ice Age?

No

Your so definitive. Have an inside tract?

To put this in a bit of context, Andrew Bolt is not regarded in high esteem by many Australians.

He's always dragged into television debates to present the right wing side, although he's very well spoken and never froths at the mouth.

That said, these emails do look fascinating, I'll look forward to seeing developments.

I was about to post the same thing... and Herald Sun is the Aussie newspaper equivalent of Fox News.

However, in this case he's just relaying the work of others. From what I've read so far, it's not looking good for ManBearPig.

Until I saw him on TV, I didn't think Bolt was an real person.

I'm still not sure that Miranda Devine actually exists.

I had a professor in college who had a graph of temperature data since it began being collected...it showed a rising and falling sine curve. Basically, temperatures rise, fall, rise, fall; reach a peak, then rise, fall, rise, fall back down before starting all over.

Edit: Here's something interesting.

Global temperature records do not look like a sine curve. They have been trending upwards, which a sine curve does not do. Of course there is a lot of variation, but there is also a trend.

Edit: Do you realise the link you posted (if you actually read it) agrees with the mainstream position, and not with you?

"Mike's Nature trick" is not a data manipulation at all, as explained here, so the answer is yes, they do - it doesn't affect the data or the trend at all. I'd be happy to explain further if you still don't get it.

Are you an astroturfer?

I should have said oscillating sinusoid. My mistake.

Edit: I've been trying to find a good example via google, but it is failing me. If you have graphing capabilities, graph something like y(x)=sin(xpi)+sin(0.89pi*x), with the x-axis set to +/-1000 and the y-axis set to +/-7.

Edit2: I forgot to mention I graphed in degrees, not radians.

[deleted]

Yes...although that looks like it might be in radians, I think I graphed in degrees.

blush

You can get it on Wolfram Alpha, but I don't know how to set the x and y axis.

Trending what now?

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html

From Wikipedia:

The adjustment caused the average temperatures for the continental United States to be reduced about 0.15 °C during the years 2000-2006. Changes in other portions of the record did not exceed 0.03 °C; it made no discernible difference to the global mean anomalies.

If you look at the graph in the very post you cited, you will see there is a clear warming trend from the latter part of the 20th century onwards.

Do you realise the link you posted (if you actually read it) agrees with the mainstream position, and not with you?

I said it was interesting, not that it was a particular view.

Can someone put up a torrent for this? I am still downloading it.

EDIT: I'm done downloading, but I tried making a torrent and it freezes my computer.

EDIT2: Torrent is at http://lymskos.github.com/FOIA.tar.gz.torrent

Wow, I just got back after an hour, and I'm both surprised and disappointed that neither this submission or any other related to this incident is anywhere near the top of the page. That's sad, reddit. Very sad.

Yeah, but I thought reddit would be a bit more objective than that.

I am, so I am waiting to see what it means rather than drawing my conclusion from headlines. And so far it does not seem to mean much. Lots of stuff, of unknown provenance (why do you assume that the hackers post unchanged copies?) that does not seem to amount to much.

The best way to sort through the information and determine what is real, what is not, and what is relevant is to get the information out there in the first place. Voting this up does not necessarily mean that you agree one way or the other; it means that you want to get to the bottom of things as quickly as possible.

Perhaps we don't all run and panic. Perhaps since this has been submitted dozens of times none of them are getting to the top.

Or, perhaps, submissions like this one are getting downvoted because reddit has a liberal bias, liberals are in favor of government regulations concerning global warming, and people in general are more interested in avoiding cognitive dissonance than honesty and objectivity. Even if these scientists did not purposefully manipulate the data, there are some things in those emails that are worthy of concern.

I can understand that this particular submission is being downvoted, as the title has the typical /r/conspiracy bent, but the others are much more objective, and one would like to believe that reddit thinks this issue at least as important as Amazon's dianetics review deletions...

No matter which side of the aisle you stand on regarding global warming, what humanity does regarding it in the next decade will have a huge impact on our future - therefore, it would behoove us to make sure we get things right. These emails are a piece of evidence which need to be examined and either discarded or acted upon, and the best way to do that is to vote these submissions up. If the emails are bullshit, the community will probably find that out. If they are worthy of further concern and/or greater skepticism of the anthropogenic global warming movement, then hopefully, the community will discover that as well. In a free society, suppression of information is almost always a bad thing, and this case is no exception.

[deleted]

It's funny, because the first 27 up votes were met with 1 down vote (I remember that very clearly earlier today). Think about that.

This is here in dozens of forms. It is a hysterical respond and the headline does is not supported by the content.

Your comment is does not makes sense.

This likely has down votes because there are already several dozen discussion of the same issue. The whole story is a hysterical response (not respond, I am a fast typist, but often the wrong form of the word comes out). And the headline here (scam, etc.) is not supported by the content of the stolen material.

How can anyone objectively make that kind of qualitative judgment so quickly? Would it not be better to upvote these articles so as to foster more discussion amongst the reddit community regarding their validity?

I am not the one making the quick judgment yet I get the down vote. I am waiting to see if there is anything of concern. So far I don't see much if any, but I can wait. I don't see how up voting dozens of articles on the same topic helps discussion. To my mind that hurts the discussion since it gets spread out.

Dude, global warning or not the bottom line is we're destroying the planet and we need to stop!!! You must focus Luke...

Yes. But where do we focus our efforts (air pollution, water pollution, ecosystem destruction, etc)? That's the real question.

http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258769226&sr=8-1

I would buy the author's whole argument if it wasn't for the fact that we're still driving around in automobiles that utilize early 20th century technology! I think the democratic process has had its chance and the result has been utter failure. I mean for god's sake "get real"...we have a space station, that's in earth's orbit and which houses human beings for six months spans at any given time. We're in the process of allowing space tourism and yet we're still driving around in polluting "Henry Fords"! I ask you, who are we fooling? We had an excellent opportunity to address this matter during the late 20th century with the outsourcing of US manufacturing and industry. One again the democratic process prove exactly where its loyalties lie; the pursuit of wealth at all cost! The cost being that now we're ten times further away from any meaningful resolution for the issue of earth's ecological destruction. The time for fundamental change is NOW! We are beyond band-aid approach and fastly approaching the emergency "open heart surgery" option... and as we all know, any action done as a result of emergency actions never leads to optimal solutions. Quantitative action is needed and NOW!

Damn, this is the most retarded post I've ever seen on reddit, and that's saying something.

Sticks and stone may break my bones but word will never hurt me!!! blaaaaaaah!!!!

Congrats, you one-upped yourself! ;)

Edit: Actually, I take that back, because this post made me laugh.

All in all, make stuff "green" is still much better for the world and thats what matters.

This is the typical liberal thought process regarding global warming.

yeah, cause cleaning the planet up would be terriable for it.

I downloaded it form megaupload, but winzip says its not a valid archive. Anyone else getting this? Or did [REDACTED] agents hack the site and corrupt the file? tantrum =(

that happens sometimes with .tar.gz files.

Try winrar or 7zip

Sweet. It will be entertaining to say the least. I love watching climate change advocates and climate change deniers argue.

It's making the mainstream news: http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=dkOWTOzINTax8_MqkarUGvCPGFWNM&topic=t

Well, to make this mess a bit simpler, let me explain... The sun, obviously, has more effect on the Earth's temperature than mankind. The global warm-ists try and discount this - the global warming-deniers try to emphasize it. The problem is, when you look at all the different solar cycles, it's pretty obvious that we are currently in a cooling phase (the deniers NEVER mention this fact). Yet, as you've no doubt heard on tv, the Earth is getting hotter every year (with the few exceptions here and there, as you would expect in any chaotic system - which is probably what they're arguing about here). When you put 2 and 2 together, the picture is much bleaker in reality. The world is supposed to be cooling right now - but it's not! The cooling effect of the sun is being vastly outweighed by humankind - and, in a cruel twist of fate, since we're supposed to be cooling, we aren't noticing how much of an effect we're actually having. The sun's natural cooling cycle is masking the horrors we're inflicting on the environment. Here's something to think about: If we're actually heating during a cooling phase - what's going to happen when we hit a warming phase (don't worry, we'll all be dead by then, and we'll have long since killed most of the animals on the planet)?... So, this is all a brouhaha over nothing - the rare year when the Earth actually cools like it's supposed to - the deniers are all over it and publicize it to death (just like they're doing here). And, this will only end up with the general public questioning whether man-made global climate change exists (just like they're doing here). So, the scientists are in a catch 22, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't...

Interesting, thanks.

This really seems like a honey trap.

you mean a honeypot? why?

Thanks, and the rhetoric in some of the emails. For example,

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

No actual scientist cares about things like that.

It sounds to me like they're reacting to a local media story. I hear the "what happened to global warming?" thing every winter when it gets cold. If they were actual scientists, they may not care, but if they're truly involved in a media disinformation/coverup conspiracy, then yeah, they would care about that sort of thing.

GO Ron Paul

Dude, I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but was that really necessary?

We need more hackers like this that can get 9/11 emails, and documents.

Our founding fathers used to hang men for war profiteering, they'd probably do the same to Al Gore, a man whose lies swindled billions from Americans during a time of war.

"Our founding fathers used to hang men for war profiteering"

Do you know how idiotic that sounds when you look at how your middle-eastern wars were organized?

It doesn't really sound as idiotic as it does sad.

Sad for you guys who have to live with yourselves; idiotic for the rest of the world getting totally shafted in the process.

Who are "we guys"? And what are you assuming about me based on one sentence?

The whole population of the United States.

Not that I'm generalizing or anything, and, really, with the greatest respect.

Your original comment about :

""Our founding fathers used to hang men for war profiteering" Do you know how idiotic that sounds when you look at how your middle-eastern wars were organized?"

Makes you sound uneducated. Our founding fathers had nothing to do with the middle-east wars(duh they have been dead for over 200 years), blame that on the fucks that run things today(MOSTLY following the Zionist Isreali agenda).

Jesus, you are stupid!

Well, here goes:

The point I intended to make was that, while your founding fathers hung people for war profiteering, the last administration absolutely reveled in it, so it did seem a little stupid to bring back such an old-fashioned thing.

Couldn't you have switched another brain cell on and assumed that I did know that your founding fathers didn't declare war on the middle east, and that I was in fact talking about the USA of today?

I am stupid? You are a complete idiot.

You even said yourself: "the point I INTENDED to make" meaning that even after most people agreed with my point YOU realized you didn't actually make the point you intended(your words).

SO, even at your own admission your OP made so little sense you had to re-write it again.

It still makes no sense though.

"while your founding fathers hung people for war profiteering, the last administration absolutely reveled in it, so it did seem a little stupid to bring back such an old-fashioned thing."

How exactly did the last administration revel in the founding fathers hanging people for war-profiteering? AND how did they bring back such an old fashioned thing? you FAIL! TRY AGAIN!

ALSO, you have to be a complete moron to think that it matters which administration we have in the White House. Left or right we get the same policies. If you don't really understand what's going on then how can you try to come off as so smarter and better than an entire country of people.

It only proves to make it clear what a small minded idiot you are.

Hackers? or people hired by the oil companies and Saudi Arabia?

I wonder if Saudi Arabia could even tell if there was global warming since it's already burning hot and dust dry there.

None of this says it was a scam or that there is no warming or anything of the sort.

[Note: This is a post written while I was angry, and thus may contain inaccuracies and exaggerations.]

Global warming conspiracy theories (and there are many, not all consistent) are lies. Spread by elite right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, people in the pay of Big Oil, a handful of older scientists who can't face the truth (and are probably right-wing nuts too in many cases), and MILLIONS of ordinary people around the world who've been sadly duped into believing them, or at least finding them credible.

But unlike 9/11 theories, which at least have the merit of (sometimes) providing an on-its-face plausible storyline for how the supposed 9/11 "real events" and/or the supposed 9/11 coverup could have occurred, global warming conspiracy theories don't even have that. They have no reasonable explanation, nor any evidence, for how virtually the entire global scientific community could have (by hypothesis) so utterly divorced itself from the truth. All they have is insinuations and hints, and (deliberate or accidental) misunderstandings of evidence such as that posted above, all of which don't stand up to cursory examination. Thus, only someone with their brain switched off could believe them. Thus, I'm not even going to bother continuing this post, or this thread.

SPRAY ... DON'T TALK TO ME!

That's a good way to carry out reasoned debate!

I'm surprised that many scientists regard the computer modeling used as evidence for global warming as of similar veracity to experiments to measure the mass of a proton: the complexity of these models is gigantic, but do not even approach the complexity of the real system.

9/11 conspiracy theories have at least some merit, but global warming theories are lies spread by "right-wingers"?

I suppose the 9/11 theories have some merit because they were acceptable to "left-wingers"?

Wake up Neo. The Matrix has you.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

this is sensationalist crap

What's sensationalist about it?

You can't, really. You can start, but you have to keep context regarding all these discussions, or it just becomes the equivalent of Glenn Beck.

Wow, and apparently it's become Rush Limbaugh: http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200051

Lol two of the seven stages of denial represented in the above post.

Sure, call it denial. I call it skepticism and scrutiny. You know, what scientists are supposed to stand for?

Given the outcry that my questioning has brought up, I find it only too-ironic that people try to take the higher ground by suggesting I'm in denial or religious because I'm only questioning the information presented.

Unfortunately, in this case (as with many others), people will ignore or attempt to discredit information that does not confirm their bias. Whether or not the emails are fake, or altered, or whatever, it is certainly an interesting development on the issue.

There are a lot more important things in this world to worry about than the mongering of "fear" that if we don't take care of the planet, we'll destroy it.

For me as well. Carbon tax my ass.

The only thing I see in this thread is a bunch of idiots spouting off about how this apparently disproves the mountains of evidence that support global warming.

I tried mentioning not to commit the "fallacy fallacy" and got downvoted, called a religious fanatic, in denial, and unable to think for 10 seconds for it, in this very post. Then called childish - this place is a real bastion of reason.

You guys aren't looking to have a rational conversation here, you're taking everyone who is looking at this and asking if this really suggests global warming is a complete hoax and ganging up on them in a huge pile of bigoted bullshit.

If you came here because this story does interest you, but you're not interested in hearing a bunch of dumbasses who seem convinced this means global warming is entirely a complete hoax, head over to the submission in another reddit that gives a more rational response to this unfortunate revelation of the questionably sketchy tactics of a few scientists:

http://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/a6i5g/breaking_hadley_cru_emails_hacked_they_show_an/

-OR-

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/a6kcb/

Or just downvote this post in complete ignorance because you now have reason to rationalize why you think everyone who thinks global warming is a problem is a religious nutcase (???), and you'd rather silence somebody for questioning your rash conclusions all while criticizing them for not liking to be questioned, I don't care.

(P.S. Actually, try to upvote this, so people can see it and be redirected to the other link, as what I'm saying is pissing a lot of these guys off and they're downvoting it thusly).

Really? For me it's just a couple of scientists talking about data reduction techniques out of context, which may or may not be bad science and are certainly worthy of serious inquiry.

Of course, I'm not so stupid as to make a huge leap of logic to suggest that one simple set of scientists fudging numbers suggests the entire academic field that seems to overwhelmingly support said theory are completely false at whim of a few cheating scientists.

Pardon me for not jumping to conclusions on simple whims, but I guess that's just the tantamount philosophy behind /r/conspiracy.

I'll just meander off in my denial, delusion, and religious fanatacism.

lol that guy is really wound tight.

"Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!"

You certainly can, but without the right applications to open the raw data files, and without a glossry of terms, context, or any training in the subject matter, the opinions you form will not nessecarily have any bearing on reality.

There is undoubtedly big data in this leak, but that does not mean joe sixpack can form an informed scientifically sound opinon by reading about a scientist's travel itinerary.

"Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!" "Death Panels" "Death Panels" "Death Panels!!!"

http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/pdfs/annurev.marine.010908.pdf

US Army scientists show that things are WORSE than IPCC predicts.

But hey, I'm sure that Army scientists are in on the huge conspiracy too.

As one of those people who are saying "I told you so" to, could you please show me what part of this contradicts man made global warming?

Not really hangly, it seems that you are trying to produce the data you want to see rather than looking at the data in front of you.

What do we actually know from this email?

What is Mike's nature trick? what is the "series" they are adding the "real" data to? What decline are they hidin? We do not know.

In a confdential informal internal email it is possible they were using terms very loosely or with a specific meaning. For instance, if we sold original cheeseburgers, and cheeseburgers with gerkin, I might call the original cheeseburgers "real", but that doesn't mean the ones with gerkin were falsified.

By the same token, "hide" may be used with any number of intents, it is possible it was intended to mean "obscure" or "replace".

I am not saying I know what happened, and I am not saying they are innocent, I am saying that none of us know, this is not the absolute proof of guilt you are putting it forward as.

We simply do not know what they are talking about.

"I'm not so stupid to make a huge leap of logic... Pardon me for not jumping to conclusions on simple whims, but i guess [insert unsubstantiated conclusion and huge leap of logic]"

No, clearly you're not that stupid. : - )

green-agenda.com has completely exposed the global warming scam. I'd like to see you read the vast evidence that it's a scam laid out at that website and then come back and try and tell me it isn't bullshit.

I think the paranoid warmist doom's day loons have been watching too many movies like the Day After Tomorrow and think the sky is falling and then they shout their cultic beliefs of protecting "gaia/mother earth" at all costs.

So I guess that's an admission you're invested emotionally in the subject and therefore can't argue on an objective basis then? Wow, you mean I was right from the very beginning? Who would have thought?

And wow, I wonder what will happen if I try to argue with others who are heavily emotionally invested in this subject just because it "sounds scientific" and will never be able to admit any possibility of wrongdoing for the global warming community. That sure is a hard one to figure out.

If by "this" I assume you mean the information acquired from the emails that were hacked.

This particular case demonstrates that scientists involved in the man made global warming campaign were actively altering their 'evidence':

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

They also demostrate just how unscientific these people are, intentionally trying to avoid and silence dissenting views:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

I know that the man made global warming political campaign is not backed up by sound scientific evidence, so this doesn't surprise me at all.

It seems others have already answered your questions. I'll just simply put it this way: it's not surprising to me, after learning and following the scientific evidence, that man made global warming alarmists repressed dissenting opinion and fudged their evidence. Does that sound more like a scientific code of conduct or a political campaign?

I say "I told you so" because the climate alarmists fudged their evidence and attempted to repress any dissenting opinions. That's how the man made global warming hysteria was so successful.

How can anyone objectively make that kind of qualitative judgment so quickly? Would it not be better to upvote these articles so as to foster more discussion amongst the reddit community regarding their validity?

What motive would a government have to do this? Politicians usually couldn't care less about limiting pollution. And we should limit pollution whether global warming is real or not.

Is it bad that deep, deep down I feel pain for what humans are doing to nature and I feel that there needs to be a decrease of 50% even if I am one of them to go?