Hackers Reveal Manipulated Climate Change Data

[Black Cat]

November 21, 2009
Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles they were reporting.

Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.

But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail messages included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an international climate accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at least one scientist speculated that the timing was not coincidental.

Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages.

But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists.” Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister.

In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures.

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”

At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said.

In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of temperature fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the thermometer data showing rising temperatures.

Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed.

Stephen McIntyre, a blogger who on his Web site, climateaudit.org, has for years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns, and who came in for heated criticism in some e-mail messages, called the revelations “quite breathtaking.”

But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ***, but the theory of gravity still works.”

He said the breach at the University of East Anglia was discovered after hackers who had gained access to the correspondence sought Tuesday to hack into a different server supporting realclimate.org, a blog unrelated to NASA that he runs with several other scientists pressing the case that global warming is true.

The intruders sought to create a mock blog post there and to upload the full batch of files from Britain. That effort was thwarted, Dr. Schmidt said, and scientists immediately notified colleagues at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The first posts that revealed details from the files appeared Thursday at The Air Vent, a Web site devoted to skeptics’ arguments.

At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.”

But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review.

He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. “This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said.

Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as “great material for historians.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1

[Bernard_Monsha]

It ain't Piltdown man.

[CrossboneGundam]

This is just a trick by the liberal media goons at the New York Times to try to gain mainstream credibility.

[Bradster]

Old news is old. And any organization can end up looking bad if someone steals over a decade's worth of private mail and only releases the ones that reinforce somebody's perception of an agenda. Shall we talk about how some Bush appointees distorted and withheld climate data that went against their position of denial?

[Bernard_Monsha]

Old news is old. And any organization can end up looking bad if someone steals over a decade's worth of private mail and only releases the ones that reinforce somebody's perception of an agenda. Shall we talk about how some Bush appointees distorted and withheld climate data that went against their position of denial?

Or NASA refusing to release data under the FOIA, both sides are ridiculous in this because it is politicized.

[Caster13]

For a second I was excited as I was reading, because then I probably would have been proven right that global warming is a lie.

It's ok, I'll wait a little longer. It's only a matter of time.

[waltsoph3]

:lol: yeah I heard about this story. This is great but at the same time should make a person upset/mad. Its really screwed up when you don't even listen to scientists and force em to alter data just to further a person's own self centered political goals.

Unbelievable. :(

[DavenIII]

Unbelievable. :(

speak for yourself...it's what I'd expect....to me it's VERY believable...I assumed this was the case long before this story broke.

[Leader Desslock]

^ Yeah, that's the thing - I think I'm more dismayed that the majority of Americans evidently find this shocking news than I am that scientists (or anyone, on either side of any issue) are presenting data in a favorable fashion.

Has critical thinking gone so far downhill in this country that people didn't realize that scientists and politicians, like all people, present biased data? Particularly when research grant money is concerned?

[tenshi_a]

They were talking about this on breakfast radio as I woke up this morning.

I promptly fell asleep, and nearly overslept. -_-

[Arnold]

:lol: yeah I heard about this story. This is great but at the same time should make a person upset/mad. Its really screwed up when you don't even listen to scientists and force em to alter data just to further a person's own self centered political goals.

Unbelievable. :(

It's easy to grab a handful of incriminating-sounding emails from over the course of many years and ignore the vast majority of the ones with data supporting the theory.

[Bernard_Monsha]

It's easy to grab a handful of incriminating-sounding emails from over the course of many years and ignore the vast majority of the ones with data supporting the theory.

So it is OK for them to talk about fudging numbers or setting up an internal vetting process to bypass the system but not OK for say Arthur Anderson, Microsoft, or Philip Morris because you support their political views?

[Arnold]

So it is OK for them to talk about fudging numbers or setting up an internal vetting process to bypass the system but not OK for say Arthur Anderson, Microsoft, or Philip Morris because you support their political views?

Let me know if they had as much credible and verifiable data with their respective issues as climate change supporters do.

[loplop]

I always thought Al Gore was full of **** . . .

[DavenIII]

I always thought Al Gore was full of **** . . .

was it the fact that he uses a private plane to fly around from speaking to speaking? or was it that the energy used in his house is equal to 20 or 30 average house holds.

Hypocrites usually are full of ****.

[Jatz]

For a second I was excited as I was reading, because then I probably would have been proven right that global warming is a lie.

It's ok, I'll wait a little longer. It's only a matter of time.

I always thought Al Gore was full of **** . . .

So the billions of tons of CO2 we stick into the atmosphere every year does nothing I suppose. :rolleyes:

[DavenIII]

So the billion of tons of CO2 we stick into the atmosphere every year does nothing I suppose. :rolleyes:

maybe, maybe not, noone really knows for sure, before making big sweeping changes and ruining the economy to prevent something from happening shouldn't we be SURE it's actually happening.

By the way, all the top scientists were sure we were going to have an Ice Age back in the 80's how'd that go.

[Jatz]

maybe, maybe not, noone really knows for sure, before making big sweeping changes and ruining the economy to prevent something from happening shouldn't we be SURE it's actually happening.

By the way, all the top scientists were sure we were going to have an Ice Age back in the 80's how'd that go.

As far as I know CO2 has already been proven to increase temperature (greenhouse gas). Regardless of weather or not the gas does anything we shouldn't be dumping it in to the air like we are. As for the economy, I'm sure the various businesses would love to go back to the old Chicago days where everything was just dumped wherever because it's cheaper than getting rid of it properly. Spending the money to make the environment cleaner is better for everybody.

[DavenIII]

As far as I know CO2 has already been proven to increase temperature (greenhouse gas).

Nope, it hasn't been proven at all, it's just a theory, I think it's been proven that it "Could" but whether it's that or just a natural cycle the earth is going through right now (like it has many times before in the earths history) is still up in the air.


Regardless of weather or not the gas does anything we shouldn't be dumping it in to the air like we are.

Agreed, but ruining peoples lives to stop it isn't right either.

Spending the money to make the environment cleaner is better for everybody.

No, it's not, not if it's not done carefully, and even done carefully it's going to be a lot of sacrificing from everyone short term.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Let me know if they had as much credible and verifiable data with their respective issues as climate change supporters do.

They do, but some people happened to "grab a handful of incriminating-sounding" documents to discredit or prosecute them. Unfortunately all it takes is one document to cast doubt on all their work.

[loplop]

was it the fact that he uses a private plane to fly around from speaking to speaking?



Exactly.


/filler

[taily]

Whether or not you agree with global warming the fact remains we should invest in alternate energy sources because no one can deny we will run out of oil in the end.

[Bradster]

maybe, maybe not, noone really knows for sure, before making big sweeping changes and ruining the economy to prevent something from happening shouldn't we be SURE it's actually happening.

By the way, all the top scientists were sure we were going to have an Ice Age back in the 80's how'd that go.

* Funny that people are always willing to accept negligible proof for the things they agree with, but require 100% proof for those they don't...

* These corrections can't happen overnight, and doubtless it'll be too late to even bother once it becomes so apparent that even the willful deniers have to accept it. (We should make all the deniers live in the coastal areas, and let them suffer once their cities become new Venices)

* I'm sure the capitalists will find a way to make money off of any new changes, but even if they didn't global concerns are more important than our economy. (And how's this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/23/climate.report.wwf.allianz/index.html) for ruining an economy, regardless of whether or not we're to blame?)

* God forbid any of us scientists ever get any new data, or realize that the models that made the previous projections aren't really valid.

[DavenIII]

Whether or not you agree with global warming the fact remains we should invest in alternate energy sources because no one can deny we will run out of oil in the end.

Agreed.

* Funny that people are always willing to accept negligible proof for the things they agree with, but require 100% proof for those they don't...


I know right? I just don't get it....people can't be objective it seems.

* These corrections can't happen overnight, and doubtless it'll be too late to even bother once it becomes so apparent that even the willful deniers have to accept it. (We should make all the deniers live in the coastal areas, and let them suffer once their cities become new Venices)

* I'm sure the capitalists will find a way to make money off of any new changes, but even if they didn't global concerns are more important than our economy. (And how's this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/23/climate.report.wwf.allianz/index.html) for ruining an economy, regardless of whether or not we're to blame?)

* God forbid any of us scientists ever get any new data, or realize that the models that made the previous projections aren't really valid.

hold on a second, It's almost like you are for ruining the economy to prevent what "may or may not" be preventable in the first place now...

I'm confused on your stance, before you said it was funny how people are willing to accept things on negligible proof (aka Global Warming) but needed 100% proof to believe something they don't want to believe (aka Earth Cycles) but now it seems your all about Global Warming...very confusing.

(and yes I'm being sarcastic, it's just that IMHO there is much more solid evidence showing Earth Cycle vs Global warming, but honestly we just don't know)

[Bernard_Monsha]

* These corrections can't happen overnight, and doubtless it'll be too late to even bother once it becomes so apparent that even the willful deniers have to accept it. (We should make all the deniers live in the coastal areas, and let them suffer once their cities become new Venices)

* I'm sure the capitalists will find a way to make money off of any new changes, but even if they didn't global concerns are more important than our economy. (And how's this (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/23/climate.report.wwf.allianz/index.html) for ruining an economy, regardless of whether or not we're to blame?)


So when my beachfront property is still beachfront property in 40 years what will you do?

[Leader Desslock]

By the way, all the top scientists were sure we were going to have an Ice Age back in the 80's how'd that go.
I remember the 80's pretty well, but I don't remember hearing that. I don't remember hearing that in the 70's, either.

I do remember hearing about the Jupiter Effect from people who certainly claimed to be 'top scientists'. Even my young mind wondered how these people could claim to be 'top scientists' when it was clear that any such cataclysmic planetary alignment was utter hogwash.

Are you certain the ice age predictions weren't made by the same 'top scientists'? You know, the same kind that like to publish books that play on peoples' fears?

[Bernard_Monsha]

I remember the 80's pretty well, but I don't remember hearing that. I don't remember hearing that in the 70's, either.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

I remember being forced to read this in 5th grade by my science teacher.

[DavenIII]

I remember the 80's pretty well, but I don't remember hearing that. I don't remember hearing that in the 70's, either.

I do remember hearing about the Jupiter Effect from people who certainly claimed to be 'top scientists'. Even my young mind wondered how these people could claim to be 'top scientists' when it was clear that any such cataclysmic planetary alignment was utter hogwash.

Are you certain the ice age predictions weren't made by the same 'top scientists'? You know, the same kind that like to publish books that play on peoples' fears?

I researched it more since it was a memory, what I'm finding is that it seems [Global Cooling] that was a big worry in the 80's was driven mainly by the media with reports supporting the idea in Newsweek/NY Times/National Geographic and Time Magazine but that most Peer reviewed scientific papers were the warming opinion even back then (though there were apparently 7 Global Cooling papers written so it's not as if there was "No one" in the scientific community that believed it back then, 7 for cooling 42 for warming)

That said come on now Dess, if you remember the 70's and 80's so well how do you not remember that, it was a big thing, Time/the Times/ Nat Geo and Newsweek aren't exactly small fry media outlets.

Anyhow, the point is we just don't know, and before making drastic changes in every day life I'd like to be sure...sorry for the people who don't agree but that's my position.

[Jae Hoon]

Yeah Global Cooling was really big, as big as Global Warming is now. Same stuff happened to, stupid programs trying to get pushed through. Scientists talking out their *** because they were paid to and in the end it was found to be natural.

[Leader Desslock]

That said come on now Dess, if you remember the 70's and 80's so well how do you not remember that, it was a big thing, Time/the Times/ Nat Geo and Newsweek aren't exactly small fry media outlets.
I've heard it mentioned, sure, just as I heard the Jupiter Effect mentioned (which Time Magazine also reported (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943035,00.html)). Heck, I remember the whole Nostradamus revival, Edgar Cayce, and a whole lot of other crackpot ideas.

What I said was that I don't remember the world's top scientists predicting an ice age in the 80's. Which, as I recall, they didn't. The world body of scientists did not make a prediction that there would be an ice age in the 80's. No evacuation plans were considered, no geopolitical maps were redrawn to reflect an impending mile-thick ice sheet covering of the land - nothing. It was a crackpot conclusion drawn by fearmongers based on interesting and legitimate scientific observations of recent changes in the climate.

The Time Magazine article does not predict an ice age, if you read it. It's more an article that says, "for those of you who've heard this crazy ice age idea floating around in the news lately, here's the basis of those stories..."

[DavenIII]

I've heard it mentioned, sure, just as I heard the Jupiter Effect mentioned (which Time Magazine also reported (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943035,00.html)). Heck, I remember the whole Nostradamus revival, Edgar Cayce, and a whole lot of other crackpot ideas.

What I said was that I don't remember the world's top scientists predicting an ice age in the 80's. Which, as I recall, they didn't. The world body of scientists did not make a prediction that there would be an ice age in the 80's. No evacuation plans were considered, no geopolitical maps were redrawn to reflect an impending mile-thick ice sheet covering of the land - nothing. It was a crackpot conclusion drawn by fearmongers based on interesting and legitimate scientific observations of recent changes in the climate.

The Time Magazine article does not predict an ice age, if you read it. It's more an article that says, "for those of you who've heard this crazy ice age idea floating around in the news lately, here's the basis of those stories..."

Misunderstanding then, I thought you were claiming to never have heard anything about it, not that you didn't hear anything about it from people you would be willing to trust.

[waltsoph3]

I always thought Al Gore was full of **** . . .
I find an irony in this..Someone told a joke on TV the other night
mentioning how he created the internet and now..its his creation that could be his undoing when it comes to climate change. I just found that funny.

Whether or not you agree with global warming the fact remains we should invest in alternate energy sources because no one can deny we will run out of oil in the end.
I absoluty agree. We do need alternate energy sources. If we did that years ago we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. Theres no excuse. Problem now is even if we start devolping them its gonna take years. But hey better late then never. We have the resources..we just got to put it to good use.


Look i don't care if its climate change, my change, elmos change, w/e change..I don't like liars. Espically ones who falsify information just to get there way. Lying shouldn't be rewarded. but thats just me.

[Bradster]

hold on a second, It's almost like you are for ruining the economy to prevent what "may or may not" be preventable in the first place now...

I'm saying the economy won't crash, it will simply change to adjust to the new reality. Like it's done many times in the past with our changes from agrarian to industrial to information, etc. Will parts of the current economy collapse? Undoubtedly, and I'd wager most of the "collapse" fearmongering is coming from those areas- they've got it coming, anyway.

But yes, I still consider the Big Picture over America's economy if the latter doesn't align with the former.

So when my beachfront property is still beachfront property in 40 years what will you do?

Then you can walk your dog over my grave and have him poop on it. If I'm right I'll have my executor hire someone to train a sea lion to do a Nelson laugh and send him down to your place..

[Caster13]

If Global Warming is debunked, then going green will most likely go away in a few years, meaning that cars will not all be changed into green econoboxes.

F*** YEA!!! :smokin:

[DavenIII]

If Global Warming is debunked, then going green will most likely go away in a few years, meaning that cars will not all be changed into green econoboxes.

F*** YEA!!! :smokin:

I don't think it should, It's not a good idea to be so dependent on one power source, especially one that is not renewable.

BUT I don't think we should be forced by our government to make sacrifices in order to stimulate this movement either since we have no reason to think we are really in "Danger" of anything.

the Government is using Global Warming as a tool to force the private sector to do what it wants, which is WRONG.

the private sector should go green, because its better (if it is) instead of doing it for tax breaks or because they feel like the world is going to end if they don't.

[Black Cat]

If Global Warming is debunked, then going green will most likely go away in a few years, meaning that cars will not all be changed into green econoboxes.

F*** YEA!!! :smokin:


this Global Warming fear and hype has been having some positive effect on cars. Now even fast cars, not just Toyotas and Fords are starting to provide much better fuel economy

i wouldn't like fast cars to go totally hybrid and electrical though. A lambo with an electric engine buzzing around like a bee ugh

[Caster13]

this Global Warming fear and hype has been having some positive effect on cars. Now even fast cars, not just Toyotas and Fords are starting to provide much better fuel economy

i wouldn't like fast cars to go totally hybrid and electrical though. A lambo with an electric engine buzzing around like a bee ugh

Too live in a world without the sound of a massive engine roaring or screaming at high RPMs with a sound that makes you deaf and smile at the same time would make me cry.

Doesn't have to be an exotic for that sound either.

[Jatz]

Nope, it hasn't been proven at all, it's just a theory, I think it's been proven that it "Could" but whether it's that or just a natural cycle the earth is going through right now (like it has many times before in the earths history) is still up in the air.
I can't really point to anything that says it is but I'll reiterate that it's not good.



Agreed, but ruining peoples lives to stop it isn't right either.
What? When? Where?



I find an irony in this..Someone told a joke on TV the other night
mentioning how he created the internet and now..its his creation that could be his undoing when it comes to climate change. I just found that funny.
He never said that you know.
If Global Warming is debunked, then going green will most likely go away in a few years, meaning that cars will not all be changed into green econoboxes.

F*** YEA!!! :smokin:
Whoo! More pollution to burn my eyes and sear my lungs! Yeah! /sarcasm

[Black Cat]

^

http://www.approvedgasmasks.com/images/evo5000-mask.jpg

[Caster13]

^

http://www.approvedgasmasks.com/images/evo5000-mask.jpg

This.

I'm not suggesting that cars should pollute everything. Having them run clean is good, but after a certain point they lose a ton of performance as a result. Look at how cars were in the 80s, a ton of them sucked.

Oh and for the record I will never own a hybrid, ever. I wouldn't even drive one.

[Ridley-X4]

I find an irony in this..Someone told a joke on TV the other night
mentioning how he created the internet and now..its his creation that could be his undoing when it comes to climate change. I just found that funny.


He didn't create the internet. You now have lost the little, microscopic credibility I had for you. Now when you say that manga/anime will be banned from Handley's case, you'll then be crying wolf. This is proof you do not do the research.

[Bernard_Monsha]

He didn't create the internet. You now have lost the little, microscopic credibility I had for you. Now when you say that manga/anime will be banned from Handley's case, you'll then be crying wolf. This is proof you do not do the research.

Al Gore invented the internets he said so. Were have you been the last decade?

[waltsoph3]

He didn't create the internet. You now have lost the little, microscopic credibility I had for you. Now when you say that manga/anime will be banned from Handley's case, you'll then be crying wolf. This is proof you do not do the research.

Uhm..I never said he did. I was talking about a joke I heard about and I got a good laugh out of it. Ofcourse I know he didnt invent the net.

btw I'm not in school. When does my words always have to be scrutinized with proof every time!? I just say whats on my mind. This isn't school! Besides I don't see any of you get bashed every time you'll say something with no proof. :mad: If I have to be insisted upon every time god forbid I post something I have to show proof..then darn it you guys need to start doing that too!
It can't be a 2 way street. Besides are guys you gonna 100% of your time gonna post something by posting some research results..exactly.

[Bradster]

Al Gore invented the internets he said so. Were have you been the last decade?

Old wingnut talking point (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp) is old.

[Ridley-X4]

btw I'm not in school.

Then get back in, if you want to learn if anime/manga will really be banned because of the MIB breaking in your house.

[Old Ape Face]

Then get back in, if you want to learn if anime/manga will really be banned because of the MIB breaking in your house.

Wait Will Smith broke into Walt's house? dude that's awesome.

[Victory]

How someone responds to this controversy reveals more about their understanding of science than anything else.

The climate skeptics see (or would like people to see) a smoking gun that invalidates everything that has been said about climate change,
I see some long technical emails about complicated statistical tests from which a few choice lines have been excised. I read another article about the emails and the writer highlighted choice bits in this manner:
blah blah fisher's test for exact values blah blah correlation significant at given alpha level blah HEY TIM HOW ABOUT SACRIFICING SOME PUPPIES TONIGHT blah experimental plan blah blah polynomial regression curves blah

[waltsoph3]

Then get back in, if you want to learn if anime/manga will really be banned because of the MIB breaking in your house.

your missing the point. WHY does a person have to do that when the answer is staring ya right in the face. Why do you think some people are concerned atm!? Besides a year ago i never would think/ponder the thought that anime/manga could be under such political pressures to the point that a person could now GO TO JAIL in the US...thats making a statement don't you think..that is history in the making stuff.

Besides we're getting off track. Lets get back on track and not derail the forum please. This is about the climate change situation .

I do want to add something about this..I think its amazing that all of sudden we're actually considering doing environmental options that have bankrupt other nations. Maybe its time they need to get back in school and learn that this will not work.

Wait Will Smith broke into Walt's house? dude that's awesome.
Nope..but as a will smith fan I would would sincerly ask for his autograph. I'm a big fan of Will's work. :)

[taily]

Who thinks Ridley should stop trying to be clever?

[Leader Desslock]

a year ago i never would think/ponder the thought that anime/manga could be under such political pressures...
It's not. Anime/manga is under zero political pressure. Child pornography is under legal pressure. Those are two entirely different ideas. Please keep them separate. Japanese comics and cartoons are not on anyone's legislative agenda.

Who thinks Ridley should stop trying to be clever?
ME!! OOOOO!!! ME!!!!


Actually, I'm more astounded at the fact that Yukimura got a coherent zinger in there. I guess if you get enough monkeys at enough typewriters...

[Old Ape Face]

Actually, I'm more astounded at the fact that Yukimura got a coherent zinger in there. I guess if you get enough monkeys at enough typewriters...

Meh, I just saw MIB in a Place I would not have expected to see it, I couldn't resist the chance to let it go to waste.

[Arnold]

Uhm..I never said he did. I was talking about a joke I heard about and I got a good laugh out of it. Ofcourse I know he didnt invent the net.

btw I'm not in school. When does my words always have to be scrutinized with proof every time!? I just say whats on my mind. This isn't school! Besides I don't see any of you get bashed every time you'll say something with no proof. :mad: If I have to be insisted upon every time god forbid I post something I have to show proof..then darn it you guys need to start doing that too!
It can't be a 2 way street. Besides are guys you gonna 100% of your time gonna post something by posting some research results..exactly.

Because we're not the ones making "the sky is falling!" claims.

You take everything so goddamned seriously. If you didn't make everything out to be a potential crisis, we might cut you some slack.

[waltsoph3]

It's not. Anime/manga is under zero political pressure. Child pornography is under legal pressure. Those are two entirely different ideas. Please keep them separate. Japanese comics and cartoons are not on anyone's legislative agenda.




fyi with all do respect..I didn't bring it up. I was just replying.


Because we're not the ones making "the sky is falling!" claims.

You take everything so goddamned seriously. If you didn't make everything out to be a potential crisis, we might cut you some slack.

sigh..go ahead join the Desslock bandwagon..everyone else does..

Some issues I do take serious..like this one for example.I meen its not everyday your life could be effected from policy changes. Wouldn't you at least like to know that it is based of of real scientific fact and not by false information? If Fox Mulder was really around I could see him working on this case..:lol:

[Vaikyuko]

It's not "the Desslock bandwagon". It's the "you're an idiot" bandwagon. I really don't like saying that, because it's terribly rude, but Walt, you honestly treat every event that couldn't possibly have an actual legal, societal, or environmental effect on anything you do with the utmost seriousness. You act as though the worst fearmongering -will- come to pass, that the world as we know it will end any day now due to the current people who run it, etc.

Do you at least understand WHY we continually call you on this?

[Bernard_Monsha]

Old wingnut talking point (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp) is old.

Wow, Snopes is really splitting hairs and spinning like a dynamo on that one. Now I remember why I stopped reading anything from there.

[Arnold]

sigh..go ahead join the Desslock bandwagon..everyone else does..

Some issues I do take serious..like this one for example.I meen its not everyday your life could be effected from policy changes. Wouldn't you at least like to know that it is based of of real scientific fact and not by false information? If Fox Mulder was really around I could see him working on this case..:lol:

It has nothing to do with Desslock. You just seem so humorless on this board; it would do you some good to lighten up once in a while.

These are important issues, sure, but you're fearing a worst case scenario for each one. I'm not going to live in fear that the FBI's going to go after my manga, and I'm not going to let fear of global warming issues dictate my life either.

[Bradster]

Wow, Snopes is really splitting hairs and spinning like a dynamo on that one. Now I remember why I stopped reading anything from there.

I realize your "I'm so cynical and objective that everything I actually agree with must be right" fantasy is precious to you, but some days you've just got to suck it up and admit you're wrong, BillO..

[Bernard_Monsha]

I realize your "I'm so cynical and objective that everything I actually agree with must be right" fantasy is precious to you, but some days you've just got to suck it up and admit you're wrong, BillO..

No, Snopes is spinning worse than Daily Kos or WND on this. It's boom right there like John Homes for everyone to see and they try to say he never said that. Even if you read the whole thing it's not something that can be misconstrued or taken out of context .

He is basically bragging and giving himself unwarranted self importance for creating the internet and many other things including were he claims he has built the economy, the environmental movement, and single-handed he improved education (all three are equally laughable). You may revel in double speak as you worship the blue donkey in all it's forms, but in a softball interview claimed he alone took the "initiative in creating the internet" not I made legislation to help people lay the infrastructure or whatever else they are trying to spin it into.

[waltsoph3]

It's not "the Desslock bandwagon". It's the "you're an idiot" bandwagon. I really don't like saying that, because it's terribly rude, but Walt, you honestly treat every event that couldn't possibly have an actual legal, societal, or environmental effect on anything you do with the utmost seriousness. You act as though the worst fearmongering -will- come to pass, that the world as we know it will end any day now due to the current people who run it, etc.

Do you at least understand WHY we continually call you on this?

sure I do at times take certain things seriously. I don't always try to take it that way.

As I said before..some issues I take serious, others I don't. And I don't appricate you calling me that. It is indeed rude and I'm surprised you haven't been filed on for your comment yet. To be honest i'm not surprised.

At least I'm not name calling Desslock. But I do however notice when he says something in contradiction to my words you all usually agree no matter what it is . You don't even try to look at it from the other perspective and thats why I call it the way i do.

I'm not an idiot just because my perspective is different. You guys need to try and understand that..no matter how unpopular it might be. :(

Understand the last thing I want..is the world to collapse ok. We all live in it.
But from time to time..just try looking at it from both parts of the spectrum..not just one side. Give it try guys you never know. :lol:

[Black Cat]

I'm surprised you haven't been filed on for your comment yet. To be honest i'm not surprised.


¿Qué? ahh Es una lástima señor Walt

[Black Cat]

we still discussing this?


"Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'"


Global warming is caused by radiation from the sun, according to a leading scientist speaking out at an alternative "sceptics' conference" in Copenhagen.

By Louise Gray
Published: 5:10PM GMT 08 Dec 2009

As the world gathered in the Danish capital for the UN Climate Change Conference, more than 50 scientists, businessmen and lobby groups met to discuss the arguments against man made global warming.

Although the meeting was considerably smaller than the official gathering of 15,000 people meeting down the road, the organisers claimed it could change the course of negotiations.

Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.

He said the last time the world experienced such high temperatures, during the medieval warming period, the Sun and the Earth were in a similar cycle.

Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea level rise has also been exaggerated by the “climate alarmists” using computer models.

He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable.

Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.

Professor Ian Plimer, from the University of Adelaide, claimed carbon dioxide from volcanoes rather than humans is driving warming as part of a natural process.

The meeting was organised by Danish group Climate Sense and the lobby group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, admitted the organisation have taken funding from Exxon Mobil in the past but pointed out that many environmental groups are also receiving funding from major corporations.

Graham Capper of Climate Sense said manmade global warming was a myth and scientists who said otherwise were lying. :

"There are people who know they are lying and do it simply for money and others who think they are doing good," he said. "But they not good scientists."

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he was speaking to delegations from the US and Canada about question marks over the science.

He said a recent poll by the Telegraph, that shows only one in two people accept man made climate change, show people are questioning the consensus being pushed by the UN summit.

“As anybody knows who follows the opinion polls in Britain and Australia and the US, in the last few weeks and months there has been a rapid collapse in the global warming chimera so while we still have our freedom, let us speak out.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html

[Victory]

"There are people who know they are lying and do it simply for money and others who think they are doing good," he said. "But they not good scientists."I know you are but what am I?

[Bernard_Monsha]

What is more funny is this leaked document (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text). F*** you third world we do what we want when we want, but we only have 50 days to save the Earth!

[Pessimist]

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002

^_^

[Bernard_Monsha]

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002

^_^

You should quote Stormfront about Jews next.

[Pessimist]

Well, first, you need to explain what 'Stormfront' is. Since I doubt that you're talking about any common storm fronts and how those are sweeping from the coast bringing both rain and thunder.

But do read the whole thing and notice how all those 'quotes' have been explained to have been taken out of context and misunderstood. While at it, do notice how they also explained the actual context, with scientific facts.

Most of all, those emails were private discussions between professionals. - In short, there was no need for them to write the 'school text book passages' to convey their messages, they can use their professional dialect, and know that the message was understood clearly and without a doubt.



If people do not belive,then there is not much that can be done for them. It simply sucks to be them.

^_^

[Victory]

Hackers Reveal Manipulated Climate Change Datare: the thread title which is not the article's title:
This semester I had a teacher show us a random cloud of data points. In the next slide he explained how him and his colleagues had processed the data to show a correlation. It basically looked like they had taken out the data points under some arbitrary line. :lol: He explained it afterwards. I retained nothing of the explanation.

This shows two things. 1. researchers manipulate data ALL THE TIME.
2. this manipulation is not accessible to just anyone without a good deal of explanation.

I'm just holding my head thinking of the willful ignorance of the workings of science that would lead us to this whole circus. Once again if you take the time to read the actual emails around each of the crunchy sound bites they're being reduced to it shows there is no smoking gun, even if you don't understand all the scientific mumbo jumbo (I don't).