CRU E-mails and data

[Devonian]

Skillfully dodging the question so I ask again how long did you meet him for??

Heard him speak, listened to the debate, asked him a question.

And my question?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Surely when it comes to science everyone should be a sceptic? Isn't that the point - you test a theory to attempt to prove it and until that point you remain sceptical of it?

Science is a methodology - it's not an epistemology so it can never prove anything.

Anyone doubts this can look how the theory of gravity was disproven.

What science produces is falsifiable theories. If your theory cannot be falsified then it is a product of ideology, not science.

So a scientist is skeptical of all theories, even ones that are yet to be falsified.

Karl Popper is one of the go-to philosophers on this.

Edited November 22, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[jonboy]

Let me start this with a comment about my position on AGW.

I remember the original idea of us heading back to an ice age proposed by Professor Lamb, back in the 1970's, at the time, I followed that and was amazed to see how quickly the idea went from a new ice age to AGW. At the time, between 1995 and about 2004, I thought AGW was a viable hypothesis, since that time I've decided that there is too much focus on the role of CO2, and not enough on the role of Methane and water vapour.

I just wonder how much personal "Attachment" these scientists feel towards the idea of AGW. I also wonder whether in 50 or more years, when the current scientists are no longer on the scene, we'll be looking at the whole AGW saga as a bunch of scientists who took a political stance (that's political with a small 'p') on the role of CO2 within the atmosphere, perhaps just to contradict the orthodoxy of the day, Lamb's view that we were heading back to an ice age, that in turn was picked up by Politicians and used in Politics (with a big 'P') to change the way that populations behave.

I actually think that we need to split the whole AGW, Climate Change and 'Green' agenda's into 3 separate parts.

In reverse order

I truly believe that the population of this planet would benefit from embracing a 'Greener' lifestyle, we should, where possible, consume less and therefore we would waste less. That is, or at least should be totally divorced from any Climate Change or AGW debate. It there is an impact on CC or AGW from a greener lifestyle it should be beneficial, but CC and AGW should not be used as the stick to beat people into a greener lifestyle.

Climate Change, simple, it's always happened. Whether it's a long term slow process caused by mechanisms such as Continental drift, or whether there are step changes such as at the end of the last Ice Age, and the time following that when the Sahara and most of Northern Africa became a desert. We should take long term views on what mechanisms we understand and plan with them, not against them, but we should always be prepared for some variability.

AGW. For me, this still has to be proved, and is getting more difficult of the scientific/political consensus to justify as temperatures are almost certainly on the decline globally. We have, IMO, about 5 years before we really start to see the effects of the lack of Sunspots in Solar Cycle 24, in that time, the net long wave radiative balance will decrease the temperature of the planet by a couple of degrees and the oceans will be seen to be colder as a result.

Back on topic, although no one should condone the theft of the data from UEA, I find it incredible that long term climatic data can be declared as 'Commercially sensitive'. There are no companies that operate on financial strategies in excess of 50 years -- which is what climate data should be about -- so how can anyone claim commercial sensitivity?

Perhaps in 50 years the AGW grouping will be seen as the equivalent to to Catholic church at the time of Galileo

Couldn't agree more The debate needs to be split into the three areas noted. For me sustainability is fundamental to how humans manage finite resource so lets talk about what society needs rather than scare mongering about climate change.

Equally the sooner we understand how our own solar system affects the planet the sooner we will understand climate

An excellent post together with those of RJS and VP

[The PIT]

Heard him speak, listened to the debate, asked him a question.

And my question?

Ah so you don't know him then enough said.

Anyway you question was based on premise that you actually knew the guy which after a lot of prompting you finally admitted you didn't.

[snowray]

I heard that there are people trying to disprove man made AGW because they feel that the Global government want to use AGW as an excuse for higher taxation in 1st world countries and a reditribution of wealth to the 3rd world, IE: In the way of compensation because we have caused the problem theoretically.

Problem being that this money would never go to where it is most needed, but to corrupt politicians. They say that the AGW agenda at the Copenhagen treaty is just a smokesceen and is in fact the 1st stage of a true world dictatorship.

Anyone know anything about this I wonder?

I always believed blindly about AGW, having seen the record breaking Summers of a few years ago and mild Winters without realy understanding the science, foolish of me realy. Now I'm just not sure whats going on. There have been many eminent scientists who have in fact rubbished the whole theory and have been marginalised, why is this I wonder?

I think that a greener environment is what should be focussed on personally, not carbon taxes.

[paul tall]

Listen warmalists, you are like a religious cult.

Just accept that the game is up.

We have been had. All of us.

This is, and always has been, an INDUSTRY. Do you know, if you want to badly enough, you can make almost any type of data say almost anything you want to?

However, everything has been exaggerated, the future predictions are scaremongering and laughable, and also far too many extreme weather events have been pinned on climate change. Lets face it, you can't have any weather at all without it being "climate change", not these days. It is all part of the PROPAGANDA, which in turn keeps the cult believing and the INDUSTRY viable.

There is data that suggests a bit of warming, but the facts do not match the hysteria and propaganda. People ARE using this for their own agendas. It is human nature - you get an opportunity and you grab it.

I have said now for 10 years that this is more about industry and taxation than saving the planet, and I'm sick of being laughed at. Politicians and Governments lie to us all of the time, they are proven liars, and you think they are telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this? You what! You need to wake up and smell the coffee.

This leak has made my day, but sadly I see believers avoiding the issues brought up and offering weak rebuttals ranging from "can't condone hacking" to "taken out of context". I urge everybody to read everything available but I fear those that can't let go of climate change won't want to. Whatever.

Oh and has anybody wondered why it morphed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" over the last few years? Do you need me to tell you, or can you work it out for yourselves?

Let me just say that you cannot pin much propaganda on global warming when the temperature stops rising. Take urbanisation out of the equation and the house of cards starts looking ready to collapse. The only way to keep the INDUSTRY going is a change of tactic, "Climate Change" is so malleable you can pin anything on it and keep the propaganda machine running.

Rainiest day for 10 years? Coldest tuesday night on 7th of November since last 7th November when it was a Tuesday? Warmest month? Windiest day for a while but not actually as windy as the last time? Just make sure that "The Daily Excess" finds out about it, sit back and let them do the work for you. "Climate Change" encompasses NOT global warming but warmer, colder, rainer, drier, everything. Convenient. Very hard to argue against when it is used to explain every weather event.

Even normal weather is climate change.

Is this where the food fight begins?

Edited November 22, 2009 by jethro
Please respect the swear filter, not try to avoid it.

[VillagePlank]

Re: Paul Tall email above ...

*cough*

I don't think that it's CO₂ wot did it, either. Perhaps a little, perhaps a modicom more - but it's not the whole story. I have tried to construct an alternate theory based on data (which, frighteningly, you assert I can make it do anything I want to if only I wanted it hard enough) that is freely available and can be computed on any spreadsheet program. I've even published a run through.

I can't say that it would make my day, but it would make it lot easier if there was a smoking gun. Unfortunately, there isn't. I've read, perhaps a third of them, and I can't see anything - the ones that the fervent keep referring to are nothing more than normal emails that run around any scientific/mathematical/computing department of any establishment commercial or academic - and the context, if you are interested is unknown We weren't there when they met at the conference and shared a cup of coffee together whilst discussing ideas that might later turn up in some email without the preliminary thoughts. So, it's not that it's taken out of context - the context is unknown

Of course, anything can be taken out of context - and given the ban on religious talk on this forum, and your reference to religion of those who might practice some new occult of the climate - I wonder if someone will take that out of context?

*cough*

[snowray]

Looks like you have answered some of my question there Tall Paul, I feel so gullible having gone along with all this clap trap for so long.

[paul tall]

Re: Paul Tall email above ...

*cough*

I don't think that it's CO₂ wot did it, either. Perhaps a little, perhaps a modicom more - but it's not the whole story. I have tried to construct an alternate theory based on data (which, frighteningly, you assert I can make it do anything I want to if only I wanted it hard enough) that is freely available and can be computed on any spreadsheet program. I've even published a run through.

I can't say that it would make my day, but it would make it lot easier if there was a smoking gun. Unfortunately, there isn't. I've read, perhaps a third of them, and I can't see anything - the ones that the fervent keep referring to are nothing more than normal emails that run around any scientific/mathematical/computing department of any establishment commercial or academic - and the context, if you are interested is unknown We weren't there when they met at the conference and shared a cup of coffee together whilst discussing ideas that might later turn up in some email without the preliminary thoughts. So, it's not that it's taken out of context - the context is unknown

Of course, anything can be taken out of context - and given the ban on religious talk on this forum, and your reference to religion of those who might practice some new occult of the climate - I wonder if someone will take that out of context?

*cough*

I didn't know that religion was banned on this board - a good move if you ask me. If anything is guaranteed to start fights bring up religion.

Sorry to anybody offended by my remark "you are like a religious cult", I didn't mean it, but I just get so angry over this damn issue sometimes - all I can see is people getting the wool pulled over their eyes and not accepting that the wool is preventing them from seeing.

Also, I apologise for the use of the F word, but again this goes back to my anger issues.

I hope some of you understand and take in my sentiment in that last post, and please do some research to see if you can agree with or refute my claims, what you may find is that you end up agreeing with me. However I expect many to laugh at me again, fob me off, quote a couple of "climate change" (ooh I HATE that word) experts, and draw a nice squiggly line to look at. Fair enough, you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Yes I realise that applies to me too, but I know my standpoint is right, so ner.

Seriously, we are being lied to about lots of things, why not climate change? This world is all about WHAT THINGS SEEM, not WHAT THINGS REALLY ARE.

Control.

[jethro]

Is this where the food fight begins?

No it isn't.

[paul tall]

Damn.

Go on, I've got a job lot of cream buns that are at their sell by date.

[jethro]

Take a trip to your local zoo in the morning and let the chimps enjoy that fun instead

[paul tall]

No.

[Buzzit]

Hello,

very longtime lurker and love this site immensly. Based on this evenings posts I felt I had to finally register an account and share with you the following link

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

[paul tall]

This was supposed to be a reply to the thread posted by Buzzit, which gave 3 links...it was locked so I can only post that reply here, sorry if it doesn't make complete sense.

My observation taken from the first link you posted...

The "trick" about adding in 1961 data was not to hide the decline in global temperatures I suspect, because we haven't had a decline...but to hide the decline in warming rate. This is my take on it.

If you compare any month or years data to the 1961-1990 average, the "warming" looks greater if you compare it to that dataset, than if you compare to the 71-00 because the 60's were a very cold decade and helped that 30 year data set be on the cold side.

The 61-90 dataset for example was colder than the 51-80, although I stand to be corrected...

Of course we should be comparing to the 1971-2000 averages now because they are relevant, and it took the Met Office until 2007ish to switch to that more relevant dataset - they stuck doggedly to the 61-90 averages years past their sell by date. Why? The switch over to 71-00 datasets was around the time the term global warming ceased to be used and was replaced by the term climate change. Why?

I have been on to this for a long time and this basically backs up my thoughts. I often asked the question "why are we still comparing to 61-90 averages, not 71-00, because it suits?" only to be ignored or fobbed off.

I think the first paragraph is damning.

The rest, well it could be something or nothing. We do as the warmalists say, need the context I think, for the other examples there.

[osmposm]

Sorry to anybody offended by my remark "you are like a religious cult", I didn't mean it, but I just get so angry over this damn issue sometimes - all I can see is people getting the wool pulled over their eyes and not accepting that the wool is preventing them from seeing.

Also, I apologise for the use of the F word, but again this goes back to my anger issues.

I hope some of you understand and take in my sentiment in that last post, and please do some research to see if you can agree with or refute my claims, what you may find is that you end up agreeing with me. However I expect many to laugh at me again, fob me off, quote a couple of "climate change" (ooh I HATE that word) experts, and draw a nice squiggly line to look at. Fair enough, you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Yes I realise that applies to me too, but I know my standpoint is right, so ner.

Seriously, we are being lied to about lots of things, why not climate change? This world is all about WHAT THINGS SEEM, not WHAT THINGS REALLY ARE.

Control.

But you're not really apologizing. If you were you would not still be SHOUTING. Capitals are shouting. Please stop shouting at us. As well as insulting us. The reason you are still insulting us is that you "know" your standpoint is right. If you expect others to listen to you, then please have the decency to listen to others. What makes you so special, what makes you such an extraordinary human being that you "know" the truth of things that other people are desperately struggling to understand - people who are as clever, and as thoughtful and as informed as you are, perhaps even more so? Good people, honest people, dedicated & hard-working people. Why must they all be blind fools or corrupt villains? Maybe - just for a moment - show some humility, and consider the possibility that you may be wrong - a possibility that I consider every day, on this and a hundred other issues.

Most of the people I know who "know" with such vehemence that they are right about anything are the very people you dislike - those who have strong religious belief. That is what faith is - knowing something without needing proof or indeed evidence, and personally I don't much like it. The evidence on Climate Change is very, very complex, and often contradictory; the politics probably even more so. I for one still don't begin to know all the answers. How wonderful it must be to be as certain as you - but then I've often envied those who have faith. Sorry, by the way, to use the phrase 'Climate Change'. But the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change has been using it in their name since 1988, and the climate has, indeed (for what ever reasons, problematically or not) changed, so it's difficult to know what else to say.

There has been a lot of over-excited and rude posting in this area over the years from both sides, but your recent diatribes are among the worst - not least because they were long and well-written. I can understand quick outbursts of anger; but to be that arrogant when you are writing slowly and carefully is...well, it is not appreciated.

In the days when people wrote letters there used to be a good bit advice about sending one in the heat of the moment - don't post it until you've re-read it the following morning. I think we could all benefit from doing the same with electronic media.

Edited November 23, 2009 by osmposm

[paul tall]

I usually use caps to emphasise a point, others may use italics, I just find it easier to use caps.

Also the climate change industry supporters have been extremely vehement in their faith, it is a two way street. Sometimes I just snap back.

Just as an added point, I wasn't writing slowly and carefully, it was a full on rant that just spilled out.

I'll take the "well written" comment about my splurge as a compliment.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

[paul tall]

Oh dear.

Smoking gun at this link. Forget context. It's a smoking gun.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/

If these e-mails prove to be genuine, and we should be able to find these very e-mails within the hacked files if they are, then the game is up. Heads will roll. Explanations will be needed.

And some people will still deny, I fear.

[osmposm]

EDIT: Sorry - my own post deleted by me. Not getting into all this again. Too much anger, too little rational thought.

(P.S. Thanks, VP, for your eminently calm and sane post above. Alas, it will do no good.)

Edited November 23, 2009 by osmposm

[PersianPaladin]

Re: Paul Tall email above ...

*cough*

I don't think that it's CO₂ wot did it, either. Perhaps a little, perhaps a modicom more - but it's not the whole story. I have tried to construct an alternate theory based on data (which, frighteningly, you assert I can make it do anything I want to if only I wanted it hard enough) that is freely available and can be computed on any spreadsheet program. I've even published a run through.

I can't say that it would make my day, but it would make it lot easier if there was a smoking gun. Unfortunately, there isn't. I've read, perhaps a third of them, and I can't see anything - the ones that the fervent keep referring to are nothing more than normal emails that run around any scientific/mathematical/computing department of any establishment commercial or academic - and the context, if you are interested is unknown We weren't there when they met at the conference and shared a cup of coffee together whilst discussing ideas that might later turn up in some email without the preliminary thoughts. So, it's not that it's taken out of context - the context is unknown

Of course, anything can be taken out of context - and given the ban on religious talk on this forum, and your reference to religion of those who might practice some new occult of the climate - I wonder if someone will take that out of context?

*cough*

I agree with that. Albeit CO2 is part of the picture, but not the only variable.

Edited November 23, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Methuselah]

Calm it down, peeps...

I have always been sceptical of the extent of GW that is anthropogenic; but, said scepticism hasn't come from being shouted-at by zealots - of whatever persuasion!

Scepticism is a prerequisite for any scientific enquiry. But scepticism works both ways, and not just one! :lol:

Therefore, the moment someone successfully refutes the hypothesis that CO₂ is a GHG, I'll dismiss it as a contributor to GW...

[laserguy]

I have always been sceptical of the extent of GW that is anthropogenic.........

Having been familiar with your view for a long time Pete,I know that comment is genuine. However..... this is the start of the phase where the penny drops for many 'AGW types'. Get ready for lots and lots of comments (not just on here!!) along the lines of "well y'know I never really believed in all that stuff",accompanied by a weak chuckle. 'AGW' is all over,bar the shouting. Failure of it's demise very soon should be all the proof one ever needs of the reason for it's continued existance. Meanwhile,the storm continues to brew. Great,the longer it takes for it to break,the more spectacular it will be. CO2 is a GHG alright,but there ain't enough of it. A speck of sand in the corner of my kid's school playing field does not make a beach! Sorry - I've only just got up.

[laserguy]

I heard that there are people trying to disprove man made AGW because they feel that the Global government want to use AGW as an excuse for higher taxation in 1st world countries and a reditribution of wealth to the 3rd world, IE: In the way of compensation because we have caused the problem theoretically.

Problem being that this money would never go to where it is most needed, but to corrupt politicians. They say that the AGW agenda at the Copenhagen treaty is just a smokesceen and is in fact the 1st stage of a true world dictatorship.

Anyone know anything about this I wonder?

I always believed blindly about AGW, having seen the record breaking Summers of a few years ago and mild Winters without realy understanding the science, foolish of me realy. Now I'm just not sure whats going on. There have been many eminent scientists who have in fact rubbished the whole theory and have been marginalised, why is this I wonder?

I think that a greener environment is what should be focussed on personally, not carbon taxes.

You might find this commentary interesting,particularly the second last paragraph.... or not! (Dev won't like it one bit - hey-ho).

http://factsnotfanta...print-scam.html

[Devonian]

You might find this commentary interesting,particularly the second last paragraph.... or not! (Dev won't like it one bit - hey-ho).

http://factsnotfanta...print-scam.html

He's saying anyone who doesn't think like him is a commie. He sees commies everywhere, I expect he checks under his bed each night and hears the sound of commies digging tunnels constantly :winky: .It's 'they're commies' scaremongering that's what it is!

He needs to read this to confirm his fears, becasue (and here I remember you like a joke don't you ) he probably wont realise the joke is on those like him.