Global Warming emails hacked and exposed

[~~whimsy~~]

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...y_hacked#63657

[YMIHERE]

The hacked emails and documents are edited and not accurate. In other words the climate hoax is a hoax by the hacker.



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.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

[marquis2]

As a scientist myself I am profoundly unhappy about many of the factors in the climate change debate.The fact that it's based on CO2 in the air though other substances like water vapour and droplets are much more powerful thermal agents , that they disregard historical temperature fluctuations and maintain (falsely) that recent warming has been unprecedented.The fact that the models used to predict future temperatures don't give the right answers when checked agains known past data.The idea that the "overwhelming mass of scientists support it" when even the climatologists can't agree.Even the IPCC bodies were split on the report .
Remember that after all that's happened the planet is still cooler than in Roman times.

[Hot Mega]

Originally Posted by marquis2

As a scientist myself I am profoundly unhappy about many of the factors in the climate change debate.The fact that it's based on CO2 in the air though other substances like water vapour and droplets are much more powerful thermal agents , that they disregard historical temperature fluctuations and maintain (falsely) that recent warming has been unprecedented.The fact that the models used to predict future temperatures don't give the right answers when checked agains known past data.The idea that the "overwhelming mass of scientists support it" when even the climatologists can't agree.Even the IPCC bodies were split on the report .
Remember that after all that's happened the planet is still cooler than in Roman times.

I readily admit to being sort of on the sidelines when it comes to the climate change debate. Both sides make compelling cases at times.

My question to you on the subject concerning historical modeling would be though, when has man in earth's history had the ability to artificially introduce as much CO2 into the environment while correspondingly eroding some of earth's natural equilibriums to CO2?

Again, I admit I'm fairly uneducated about the overall subject though and am nowhere near a climatologist.

[marquis2]

Originally Posted by Hot Mega

I readily admit to being sort of on the sidelines when it comes to the climate change debate. Both sides make compelling cases at times.

My question to you on the subject concerning historical modeling would be though, when has man in earth's history had the ability to artificially introduce as much CO2 into the environment while correspondingly eroding some of earth's natural equilibriums to CO2?

Again, I admit I'm fairly uneducated about the overall subject though and am nowhere near a climatologist.

The point made was that the Earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles since time immemorial without human intervention.It's not particularly warm at the moment by geological standards.
The trouble with climatologists is that their funding depends upon their conclusions.If they feel (as many do) that the effect of humans has been dramatically overestimated they won't say so because it's goodbye to the pay packet and a cushy job.They will simply describe things as inconclusive and further research is necessary.They of course have the wonderful advantage of not having to prove their theories.

[Facetious]

I heard Schnitt talk about this last evening lol !

Gore with all of his carbon cred crap, he's every bit as bad as "Madeoff and the ponzi scheme" - Hey, that would be a cool name for a band, huh ?

[Hot Mega]

Originally Posted by marquis2

The point made was that the Earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles since time immemorial without human intervention.It's not particularly warm at the moment by geological standards.
The trouble with climatologists is that their funding depends upon their conclusions.If they feel (as many do) that the effect of humans has been dramatically overestimated they won't say so because it's goodbye to the pay packet and a cushy job.They will simply describe things as inconclusive and further research is necessary.They of course have the wonderful advantage of not having to prove their theories.

That's interesting but it doesn't really address nor answer my question.

If we accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases have a thermal effect on the earth's atmosphere and the rain forests which seem to counter these effects are being eroded, isn't it at least noteworthy that mankind is on the one hand producing artificially more CO2 than ever in human history and on the other things like the rain forests are being eroded?

With respect to modeling, when in earth's history have these circumstances existed in the way they exist today?

[marquis2]

Originally Posted by Hot Mega

That's interesting but it doesn't really address nor answer my question.

If we accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases have a thermal effect on the earth's atmosphere and the rain forests which seem to counter these effects are being eroded, isn't it at least noteworthy that mankind is on the one hand producing artificially more CO2 than ever in human history and on the other things like the rain forests are being eroded?

With respect to modeling, when in earth's history have these circumstances existed in the way they exist today?

Many times. In the planet's history CO2 levels have been WAY higher than they are today.At present it's 0.038% of the atmosphere.
85% of the rainforests are still standing and 12% are in a recovery state (which actually use more CO2 than fully grown trees)
About 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is put there by humans.Remember of course that our fossil fuels were made from CO2 in the past by plants and burning them is simply recycling what has always been there.
CO2 is by no means the most powerful greenhouse gas;methane and water vapour are massively more effective.But of course these cannot be evaluated unlike CO2 levels which are the same all over the Earth.
Look at
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

[Hot Mega]

Originally Posted by marquis2

Many times. In the planet's history CO2 levels have been WAY higher than they are today.At present it's 0.038% of the atmosphere.
85% of the rainforests are still standing and 12% are in a recovery state (which actually use more CO2 than fully grown trees)
About 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is put there by humans.Remember of course that our fossil fuels were made from CO2 in the past by plants and burning them is simply recycling what has always been there.
CO2 is by no means the most powerful greenhouse gas;methane and water vapour are massively more effective.But of course these cannot be evaluated unlike CO2 levels which are the same all over the Earth.
Look at
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Man has artificially generated CO2 at levels we currently generate it today many times in earth's past??

I understand other gases have a greater thermal influence but methane and water vapor aren't generate artificially by humans at nearly the rate CO2 is....If greenhouse gas effect on climate change is to be believed I suppose it's a great thing we don't.

[Nester6]

Originally Posted by marquis2

As a scientist myself I am profoundly unhappy about many of the factors in the climate change debate.The fact that it's based on CO2 in the air though other substances like water vapour and droplets are much more powerful thermal agents , that they disregard historical temperature fluctuations and maintain (falsely) that recent warming has been unprecedented.The fact that the models used to predict future temperatures don't give the right answers when checked agains known past data.The idea that the "overwhelming mass of scientists support it" when even the climatologists can't agree.Even the IPCC bodies were split on the report .
Remember that after all that's happened the planet is still cooler than in Roman times.

This is just another Democrat excuse to penalize American companies with ridiculous pollution standards while the rest of the world pollutes at will! Obama bought it hook,line and sinker as it is just another reason for him to tax people who work, and give free benefits to people who do not. A true socialist!

[BlueBalls]

Originally Posted by marquis2

Many times. In the planet's history CO2 levels have been WAY higher than they are today.At present it's 0.038% of the atmosphere.
85% of the rainforests are still standing and 12% are in a recovery state (which actually use more CO2 than fully grown trees)
About 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is put there by humans.Remember of course that our fossil fuels were made from CO2 in the past by plants and burning them is simply recycling what has always been there.
CO2 is by no means the most powerful greenhouse gas;methane and water vapour are massively more effective.But of course these cannot be evaluated unlike CO2 levels which are the same all over the Earth.
Look at
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

It has been said that the two main causes of climate change throughout history are the level of solar output and the position the Earth is in, in conjunction with the sun. The other being the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere the main one being CO2. Water vapour as I have seen you mention above does in fact raise climate temperatures. But water vapour concentration is dictated by the temperature of the environment. This makes them an amplifier and not a cause.

I think what needs to be taken into account here is the fact that both the sun and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is what really makes a difference to climate. And whilst it can be said that the levels of C02 in the atmosphere were far higher in the past than they are now what needs to be looked at is the level of solar output at the same time. Which as I'm sure you'll know was lower in brightness than it is today. So yes the climate can be cooler with more sunlight upon it or vice versa. It all depends on the fluctuations of either of the two main causes within the atmosphere.

Yes there are times of climate change that haven't been caused by solar irradiation or C02 but by those other factors such as volcano eruptions or comet strikes releasing aerosols etc into the atmosphere blocking out the sun’s rays leading to a period of cooling and so on. Along with the fact that the positive feedback that can be caused by for example the melting of ice caps which releases frozen pockets of methane making the situation worse.

But, when the level of solar irradiation is looked at over the past 500 million years there's generally a constant increase and when it is compared to the level of carbon dioxide that's being released into the atmosphere which has also been increasing for centuries due to mans ingenuity. Remembering what we know, it's easy to see why the climate is changing because of those two factors.

[grimey]

Originally Posted by YMIHERE

The hacked emails and documents are edited and not accurate. In other words the climate hoax is a hoax by the hacker.



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.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../the-cru-hack/

Guy!..........that's a statement from a board of climate scientists! You notice how they put a question mark after the words possibly edited??? They're obviously trying to place blame on the hackers for their huge foul up! Did you even read some of those emails!? No evidence of falsifying data my ass! These swindlers ought to be tried for treason! These fools don't have a leg to stand on as far as affirmation of cold hard evidence!

[grimey]

Originally Posted by BlueBalls

But, when the level of solar irradiation is looked at over the past 500 million years there's generally a constant increase and when it is compared to the level of carbon dioxide that's being released into the atmosphere which has also been increasing for centuries due to mans ingenuity. Remembering what we know, it's easy to see why the climate is changing because of those two factors.

500 million years, dude what are you talking about??? It would be best to everybody, yourself most of all, if you wouldn't just throw around random numbers like that.....show me where you get your data...

[Friday on my mind]

Originally Posted by grimey

500 million years, dude what are you talking about??? It would be best to everybody, yourself most of all, if you wouldn't just throw around random numbers like that.....show me where you get your data...

How is that different then the so called person who claims to be scientist here on your side of the issue who has posted in the past we have no temp records before a few hundred years ago but yet says we are cooler than roman times etc etc. I really don't even bother to respond to most of you its a hoax crowd as I know what the majority of real scientists say and what every govt acknowledges is the truth on this be they left or right politically.

BTW I'm not a scientist but I did stay at Holiday Inn express last night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dOHEw8izno

[grimey]

Originally Posted by Friday on my mind

How is that different then the so called person who claims to be scientist here on your side of the issue who has posted in the past we have no temp records before a few hundred years ago but yet says we are cooler than roman times etc etc. I really don't even bother to respond to most of you its a hoax crowd as I know what the majority of real scientists say and what every govt acknowledges is the truth on this be they left or right politically.

BTW I'm not a scientist but I did stay at Holiday Inn express last night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dOHEw8izno

Because that post is totally BS! We don't have any records of solar radiation levels that we can look at for 500 million years ago...

I really don't even bother to respond to most of you its a hoax crowd as I know what the majority of real scientists say and what every govt acknowledges is the truth on this be they left or right politically.

[BlueBalls]

Originally Posted by grimey

500 million years, dude what are you talking about??? It would be best to everybody, yourself most of all, if you wouldn't just throw around random numbers like that.....show me where you get your data...

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122..._young_sun.jpg

Red line.

What you'll notice that if you compare solar irradiance with global temps you won’t get much of a correlation. But if you were to compare solar irradiance rates with C02 rates against time. I would think you'd get a pretty decent correlation.

[Hot Mega]

Originally Posted by BlueBalls

It has been said that the two main causes of climate change throughout history are the level of solar output and the position the Earth is in, in conjunction with the sun. The other being the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere the main one being CO2. Water vapour as I have seen you mention above does in fact raise climate temperatures. But water vapour concentration is dictated by the temperature of the environment. This makes them an amplifier and not a cause.

I think what needs to be taken into account here is the fact that both the sun and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is what really makes a difference to climate. And whilst it can be said that the levels of C02 in the atmosphere were far higher in the past than they are now what needs to be looked at is the level of solar output at the same time. Which as I'm sure you'll know was lower in brightness than it is today. So yes the climate can be cooler with more sunlight upon it or vice versa. It all depends on the fluctuations of either of the two main causes within the atmosphere.

Yes there are times of climate change that haven't been caused by solar irradiation or C02 but by those other factors such as volcano eruptions or comet strikes releasing aerosols etc into the atmosphere blocking out the sun’s rays leading to a period of cooling and so on. Along with the fact that the positive feedback that can be caused by for example the melting of ice caps which releases frozen pockets of methane making the situation worse.

But, when the level of solar irradiation is looked at over the past 500 million years there's generally a constant increase and when it is compared to the level of carbon dioxide that's being released into the atmosphere which has also been increasing for centuries due to mans ingenuity. Remembering what we know, it's easy to see why the climate is changing because of those two factors.

Uh wait a minute....First, I again admit I'm no authority whatsoever on climate change or global warming. However, what I understand about the argument is too much UV is being allowed into our atmosphere and not enough heat is being allowed to escape.

Aerosols allegedly eat ozone which allow more UV and greenhouse gases trap heat by not allowing UV rays to reflect off the earth back out of our atmosphere.

Aerosols and gases which comprise the greenhouse family are both naturally occurring elements on earth.

The question is whether man has generated or is generating enough of these elements artificially to effect a substantive, detrimental (to life on earth) change to the earth's climate?

If we accept the premise of aerosols and greenhouse gases as culprits, hard to imagine a time in earth's history where these elements were being generated by artificial means at a higher rate than they are now.

[grimey]

Originally Posted by BlueBalls

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122..._young_sun.jpg

Red line.

What you'll notice that if you compare solar irradiance with global temps you won’t get much of a correlation. But if you were to compare solar irradiance rates with C02 rates against time. I would think you'd get a pretty decent correlation.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation

For general purposes, the energy output of the sun can be considered constant. This of course is not entirely true. Scientists have shown that the output of the sun is temporally variable (Figure 4). Some researchers have also suggested that the increase in the average global temperature over the last century may have been solar in origin. This statement, however, is difficult to prove because accurate data on solar output of radiation only goes back to about 1978.

[BlueBalls]

Originally Posted by Hot Mega

Uh wait a minute....First, I again admit I'm no authority whatsoever on climate change or global warming. However, what I understand about the argument is too much UV is being allowed into our atmosphere and not enough heat is being allowed to escape.

Aerosols allegedly eat ozone which allow more UV and greenhouse gases trap heat by not allowing UV rays to reflect off the earth back out of our atmosphere.

Aerosols and gases which comprise the greenhouse family are both naturally occurring elements on earth.

The question is whether man has generated or is generating enough of these elements artificially to effect a substantive, detrimental (to life on earth) change to the earth's climate?

If we accept the premise of aerosols and greenhouse gases as culprits, hard to imagine a time in earth's history where these elements were being generated by artificial means at a higher rate than they are now.

I'm far from an expert myself. I'm just trying to convey some factual information that I felt had been lost within the framework of this thread.

Generally aerosols and I'm talking about either man made pollutants here or natural aerosols kicked up off the surface for whatever reason. Lets say a volcano eruption. Differ somewhat from the effects of C02 because they usually exert the opposite reaction. They block the sun’s rays which can cool the area in question. But as I say in my post the effects of the two main climate culprits far outweighs the effects of aerosols due to the fact that enough of them in the atmosphere something would have had to have happened to cause them to be there.

This is the major worry with the amount of C02 being pumped into the atmosphere. Whilst you may have smog over the streets of LA I doubt it feels much cooler. This is because of the combination of a brighter sun and the sheer amount of greenhouse gasses we're dumping into the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by grimey

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation

What you've posted here seems to be making my point for me. Solar output is but one factor in climate change not the sole factor and we are indeed speeding up the process by which the climate is changing with our actions.

[jasonk282]

It might have something to do with that big orangeish, yellowish star in the sky emitting solar flares.

Of cows just fart a lot.

Either way we are screwed make life what it is and have fun.

[grimey]

Originally Posted by BlueBalls

What you've posted here seems to be making my point for me. Solar output is only but one factor in climate change.

I wasn't in general referring to the whole article, just to the part where we've only been accurately recording solar radiation levels since 1978....and that's fact, not theory.

It's funny that you're still clinging to this phony science, when basically they've been caught with their pants down...

[Hot Mega]

Originally Posted by BlueBalls

I'm far from an expert myself. I'm just trying to convey some factual information that I felt had been lost within the framework of this thread.

Generally aerosols and I'm talking about either man made pollutants here or natural aerosols kicked up off the surface for whatever reason. Lets say a volcano eruption. Differ somewhat from the effects of C02 because they usually exert the opposite reaction. They block the sun’s rays which can cool the area in question. But as I say in my post the effects of the two main climate culprits far outweighs the effects of aerosols due to the fact that enough of them in the atmosphere something would have had to have happened to cause them to be there.

This is the major worry with the amount of C02 being pumped into the atmosphere. Whilst you may have smog over the streets of LA I doubt it feels much cooler. This is because of the combination of a brighter sun and the sheer amount of greenhouse gasses we're dumping into the atmosphere.

Naturally occurring phenomena like volcanoes, CO2 from fires, methane from decay, etc. exist today and throughout relevant earth history. The only difference to any model from what I see is man's introduction of artificially generated CO2 and erosion rain forests.

[BlueBalls]

Originally Posted by Hot Mega

Naturally occurring phenomena like volcanoes, CO2 from fires, methane from decay, etc. exist today and throughout relevant earth history. The only difference to any model from what I see is man's introduction of artificially generated CO2 and erosion rain forests.

I agree.

I think I may have worded my argument incorrectly. My initial plan was to try to explain what the major factors for climate change were and how with the sustained increase in the level of the two major factors, one of whom is of our doing - which should be plain to see. The cliate will change.

To put it simply if we weren't pumping so much C02 into the atmosphere, no matter how much solar output there may be (yet). For the time being the climate wouldn't be in the shape it is in or in the shape it is going to be if something isn't done to try to slow its effects.

And, I'm done.

[marquis2]

Originally Posted by BlueBalls

I agree.

I think I may have worded my argument incorrectly. My initial plan was to try to explain what the major factors for climate change were and how with the sustained increase in the level of the two major factors, one of whom is of our doing - which should be plain to see. The cliate will change.

To put it simply if we weren't pumping so much C02 into the atmosphere, no matter how much solar output there may be (yet). For the time being the climate wouldn't be in the shape it is in or in the shape it is going to be if something isn't done to try to slow its effects.

And, I'm done.

The amount pumpd into the atmosphere actually isn't that great by global standards and most of it anyway wasn't put there by humans.
The plain fact is that at the moment the planet is cooling , not a lot but nevertheless it's cooling.The rise in temperatures noted in the 70s to the 90s (despite claims , it wasn't that rapid or great in historical terms) stopped in 1998.Whatever the reason something stopped it yet more human activity was taken place.
Long term we should , if previous cycles are repeated,warm for a little longer and then cool again.One of these cycles will continue until we are in another ice age. And unlike the effect of an extra degree or two an ice age would be totally catastrophic to us.Not to the planet, it will see us all off.Talk about saving the planet is crap.
To reply to the poster who questions how we know what temperatures were like in the past , the conditions leave clues behind.But we do know for example that the Romans grew vines in Northern England and a thousand years ago Greenland was , er , green and under cultivation.

[Hot Mega]

Originally Posted by marquis2

The amount pumpd into the atmosphere actually isn't that great by global standards and most of it anyway wasn't put there by humans.
The plain fact is that at the moment the planet is cooling , not a lot but nevertheless it's cooling.The rise in temperatures noted in the 70s to the 90s (despite claims , it wasn't that rapid or great in historical terms) stopped in 1998.Whatever the reason something stopped it yet more human activity was taken place.
Long term we should , if previous cycles are repeated,warm for a little longer and then cool again.One of these cycles will continue until we are in another ice age. And unlike the effect of an extra degree or two an ice age would be totally catastrophic to us.Not to the planet, it will see us all off.Talk about saving the planet is crap.
To reply to the poster who questions how we know what temperatures were like in the past , the conditions leave clues behind.But we do know for example that the Romans grew vines in Northern England and a thousand years ago Greenland was , er , green and under cultivation.

Wouldn't a reason for "cooling" be explained by the melting of icebergs into bodies of water as a result of warming? Sort of like the effect on a glass of water when ice cubes are added to it...The ice melts and cools the water which cools the glass.

The whole question still comes down to IMO whether you believe CO2 contributes globally to trapping heat in our atmosphere and are we generating more CO2 than can be naturally neutralized.