When hackers hacked on the computers of one of the major centers of the so-called "Global Warming", they found out that most of the data was false/baseless. These were solid facts, and texts that took up to 100+ Mb in total. This was supposed to turn global warming upside-down. Instead, there was some dull answers from both sides. The answers from the "greens" were as follows:
1. 1,700 British scientists signed a joint statement circulated by the UK Met Office declaring their "utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities." 2. Met Office chief executive John Hirst and its chief scientist Julia Slingo asked their colleagues to sign the statement "to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change." 3. Climatologist James Hansen said that the controversy has "no effect on the science" 4. said that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious",[15] and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem." 5. He has also said that the theft may be aimed at undermining talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.
When I heard it reported from several reliable news sources it was reported as that global warming is true, and that the science behind it is true. Basically, I turned on the news and the words I heard were "Emails recovered from global warming scientists....reveal that the science is true, but...smear campaign" or something of the sort.
Please correct this if it's wrong, but I'm 99% sure that this was an attempt at misleading and manipulating the facts, not completely reversing them.
So either way YOU are in the class of idiots huh Orion? Climate change has always happened. Global climate change is a joke. One place becomes more fruitful even as another place becomes less. One region has droughts and another floods. Global climate change would mean the same thing happened all over and that is quite impossible.
One place becomes more fruitful even as another place becomes less.
No.
One region has droughts and another floods. Global climate change would mean the same thing happened all over and that is quite impossible.
That's like saying it's incorrect to call 'fireflies' fireflies, because they aren't actually on fire. The hint is in the name. Different climates zones will be affected in different ways. That doesn't mean that global climate change isn't occuring.
There's a reason scientists advocated the change of terminology from 'global warming' to 'global climate change'. I would have thought it would be obvious.
and that is quite impossible
Really? You already acknowledged that climate change has always happened, and then turn around and say that climate change is impossible. Interesting line of argument.
These people don't deny it, they extremely over exaggerate it. They are idiots, lower idiots than the idiots who deny it.
That's pretty much the reports, and that's (pretty obviously) the truth.
I would have said what firefly said, but he already said it.
One place becomes more fruitful even as another place becomes less.
No places are becoming "more fruitful". Every single place is declining in ecological status, in different ways. Less and less organisms are being given the ability to exist each day.
I'd also like to point out that one main reason for the decline of the O-zone and THE main reason for the more-than-normal rapid extinction of animals is the severe decline of the rain forest. Last I checked, the rain forest doesn't destruct itself and start burning oil into the atmosphere.
And as for the actual act of this corruption, I would make a big deal about it if people made a big deal with the Bush Administration took papers on global warming and turned "Earth will be entering a period of change" into "Earth may be entering", "energy production contributes to warming" is crossed out, "uncertainty" about its overall effect is "significant remaining uncertainty", a large sentence on how the uncertainty of it undermines the science of studying it is added in, parts on how it will effect human health are crossed out. There was barely any feedback from this. If that gets nearly no feedback and this does, then HA!
Well what statistical evidence do you have that global warming is real?
Fun Fact: A big chunck of leaders in the global warming movement were leaders in the global cooling movement in the seveties.
Please correct this if it's wrong, but I'm 99% sure that this was an attempt at misleading and manipulating the facts, not completely reversing them.
You are, but the result is the same.
More quotes from the e-mails: "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." "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewiseâ¦Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address." "Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go?" "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!" "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,"
Im really a fence sitter when it comes to global warming... mostly because this statement...
These people don't deny it, they extremely over exaggerate it. They are idiots, lower idiots than the idiots who deny it.
...is true. Its hard to know what "facts" to believe and what not to believe.
But to think that cutting down rainforests and using vast amounts of energy and setting off atomic bombs isnt extremly stupid and isnt going to affect our enviroment takes a special kind of stubborn blindness.
Sorry, but pretty graphs are made by staticians to show anything you darn well want.
They also show the truth. People always use the argument 'climate change has always been happening' to rubbish the theory of global climate change right now. What graphs can show is how wrong they are with regards to proportions of the change that has occured in the past and what is occuring now.
"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."
What about that goumas13?
The second diagram is with the word "reconstructed"? Did you see those markings from the left? We are hotter then the medival hot period by only 0.2 degrees.
Where did you get your diagrams?
Especially that the statisticans made a rise in the current temeture and a drop in previous.
Sorry, but you cannot impress me by quoting an email, which was used in a Smear campaign. I don't have any doubt that often the scientists falsify numbers, but I am also sure that when there are so many money in stake they do it well. If you believe in something hard, then it becomes true (for you).
The second diagram is with the word "reconstructed"?
A reconstruction is needed because a reliable surface temperature record exists only since about 1850, but from that moment on temperatures are recorded.
medival hot period
The Medieval Warm Period was not global. The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 says "... current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries"
Where did you get your diagrams?
I got my diagrams form a very reliable source, Wikipedia.
ps. This is a debate not a press conference, so unless you don't share your opinions too, I will not bother answering to your questions again.
