Global warming hoax fools millions

NeoRio1 · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from slacker:

A complete database of all of the ClimateGate emails and software can be found at:

http://www.climate-gate.org/

The emails are indexed by subject.

That website and those emails are just amazing. Look at a random email by Phil Jones-

"Mike,
We'll differ a bit on a few points, but let's wipe the slate
clean and get back to improving our estimates of past changes
over the last millennium.
I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over
here makes that easier than in the US - but I would ignore the
so-called skeptics until they get to the peer-review arena. I know
this is harder for you in the US and it might become harder still
at your new location. I guess it shows though that what we are
doing in important. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle.

Cheers
Phil"

The skeptics are fighting a losing battle? Sounds like he is rooting for a certain outcome. This was in 1999 by the way.

bigdavediode · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from NeoRio1:

The skeptics are fighting a losing battle? Sounds like he is rooting for a certain outcome.

And...? The skeptics did fight a losing battle, and did eventually lose.

Take this forum for example, the big skeptic rejoinder to the Nature article which published and analysed the "hidden" data 10 years ago was to post a picture of some fat guy.

It's not like the skeptics even put up a fight.

NeoRio1 · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

And...? The skeptics did fight a losing battle, and did eventually lose.

How have they lost?

bigdavediode · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from NeoRio1:

How have they lost?

Every single major scientific institution has analysed the data and stated that man-made global warming is occurring.

It's not some emotional argument -- it's based on the data and no amount of emails invalidates the data.

slacker · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

Every single major scientific institution has analysed the data and stated that man-made global warming is occurring.

Not true at all. The emails show a focused effort to suppress any discussion of facts, process and conclusions that did not agree with their own agenda.

From this email from Pro. Jones

âI canât see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow â even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is! Cheers, Phil.â

Also, what data are you referring to? Data was destroyed, kept from being released by FOI requests, and altered.

bigdavediode · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from slacker:

Not true at all. The emails show a focused effort to suppress any discussion of facts, process and conclusions that did not agree with their own agenda. </i>

Nonsense. McIntyre and McKitrick's climate results were discredited in 2004 in another peer reviewed paper in the Journal of Climate. (McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist.) Even if there had been an attempt to suppress the science of McIntyre and McKitrick, their first paper was actually published in 2003. God knows why.

Also, what data are you referring to? Data was destroyed, kept from being released by FOI requests, and altered.

I was referring to the "hidden" tree ring data published ten years ago.

Please, by all means, be as specific as you want on any data that you want. Understand, though, that all the raw data required to support evidence of global warming is available one click away on the web.

NeoRio1 · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

Every single major scientific institution has analysed the data and stated that man-made global warming is occurring.

It's not some emotional argument -- it's based on the data and no amount of emails invalidates the data.

Even if I thought the data was perfect and a consensus present I would still argue that the skeptics are still winning. Why? For nearly 20 years, the United States has resisted mandatory limits on heat-trapping emissions.

What is that you say? You're saying things are different now? You might want to take a closer look. In June an emission reduction bill that would reduce emissions by 17% was passed by 219 to 212 in the House. In the considerably liberal house where 44 Democrats voted against the bill the Senate will need every single Democrat senator to vote for the bill or support a similar bill written in the Senate. There are around 12-15 conservative bluedog Democrats in the Senate which means the overall makeup of Democrats in the Senate are much more conservative than the Democrats in the House. Every single one of those bluedogs will need to vote for the bill to even have a chance of passing it. This means that the chances of actual legislation being passed is very, very slim.

The day a bill is passed in the Senate similar to the one in the House is the day you can claim that the skeptics have lost. Until then you are merely claiming that the Saints have won the Super Bowl because in your opinion the whole world thinks they are going to win.

bigdavediode · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from NeoRio1:

The day a bill is passed in the Senate similar to the one in the House is the day you can claim that the skeptics have lost. Until then you are merely claiming that the Saints have won the Super Bowl because in your opinion the whole world thinks they are going to win.

I'm afraid you are confusing the United States with "The World" and science with lawmaking, and argument with action.

The rest of the world is leading on this issue and with respect to climate, the US will eventually follow, late, just as with seatbelts, landmines, child soldiers, and so on.

slacker · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from bigdavediode:

Nonsense. Even if there had been an attempt to suppress the science .... God knows why.

Nonsense? "Even if there had been an attempt..." No "IF", the emails prove there was a focused effort over years to suppress and misrepresent results. If 'everybody agrees that AGW exists' then why suppress data, destroy data, and misrepresent their results? Truth is that everybody does not agree AGW exists and the truth is surfacing. It will take time. My guess is that there will be more information surfacing.

As to why? AGW is big business. Al Gore has certainly increased his wealth. The 'researchers' have received grants and funds for their institutions with this fraudulent work. Why? Easy: follow the money.

bigdavediode · Dec 6, 2009

Quote from slacker:

Nonsense? "Even if there had been an attempt..." No "IF", the emails prove there was a focused effort over years to suppress and misrepresent results.

Nope. McIntyre and McKitrick's paper was published in 2003, despite being terrible. It was utterly discredited in 2004, and their 2004 paper was subsequently rejected by Nature because it was outright illogical.

If 'everybody agrees that AGW exists' then why suppress data, destroy data, and misrepresent their results? Truth is that everybody does not agree AGW exists and the truth is surfacing. It will take time. My guess is that there will be more information surfacing.

That didn't happen. At this point the argument was finished a long time ago. There's far too much data available.

As to why? AGW is big business. Al Gore has certainly increased his wealth. The 'researchers' have received grands and funds for their institutions with this fraudulent work. Why? Easy: follow the money.

McIntyre works for the oil industry. McKitrick is a economist. Neither is a climatologist. When's the last time you saw a climatologist writing about economics in an economics journal? What motivation would there be for a climatologist to write in an economics journal?

What about the other way around?