A picture that's worth one thousand stolen E-Mails

[Epicurus]

I hate how you try to illustrate points through cartoons. That means nothing. Right-wingers have cartoons. That neither helps nor hurts your argument, it merely shows that you are apparently the kind of person who must simplify every issue into a caricature to grasp it.

 

[cawacko]

Haha... that's awesome Epic.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Some of these emails are from 1996, do you remember an email verbatum from 1986?

There may very well be ways to trace wether they have been doctored that take a little more time.

The people who produced them stole them. Do you think they are above deception even though they are thieves?

Since the E-Mails have been out there, for a while now, why hasn't anyone come forth and declared what parts aren't factual.

 

[tinfoil]

Since the E-Mails have been out there, for a while now, why hasn't anyone come forth and declared what parts aren't factual.

THIS.
Liberals will believe anything they're told to believe. Just look at watertard. He's so uninformed he doesn't realize James Hansen refuses to reveal his correction formulas in the same way that Mann and Briffa witheld methods and datasets they used. It's old news. That's why people stopped quoting Hansen!! LOL
Google it, waternoob. You might learn a little something

 

[Atticus]

As someone who has been on the fence on global warming for a long time, watching this unfold has definitely pushed me into the skeptic zone. Seeing how the scientists involved are biased at best and manipulating data at worst has made me skeptical about the soundness of the theory as a whole. I do not pretend to have studied the issue extensively. It does not interest me remotely. But I do feel that my opinion is a decent indicator of the public at large on this issue, simply because my knowledge about global warming comes almost exclusively from news headlines. Does ClimateGate show that global warming is a hoax? Certainly not. But it does suggest to observers that they should employ a degree of caution in accepting the conclusions of these scientific bodies as infallible. Seeing the agenda that at least a handful of top scientists were openly pushing in their email exchanges should warn casual observers who have not had the time or desire to research the issue extensively to be cautious about accepting the scientific communities' conclusions as Gospel.

Global warming is a natural process that fluctuates almost consistently throughout earth's history. It is a fact of nature, however human output of greenhouse gasses has effected it, just not as radically has some would like us all to believe. Epicurus is on the right track here. We do need to watch ourselves and take steps to improve our impact on our earth, but taking scientists words “as Gospel” as he put it is a mistake.

If you want more information on this there is a good article from BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/green_room/8390388.stm

 

[Taichiliberal]

On the one hand we have an "interpretation" of the emails from fringe teabaggers, rightwing blogs, and people who were easily fooled into the Iraq Fiasco.

On the other hand, the universally respected and legitimately scientifically informed journal "Nature" treats "climate gate" for what it is. A laughable conspiracy theory.


Climatologists under pressure

NATURE
Dec. 2, 2009

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570).


A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden.

The theft highlights the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers.

The e-mail theft also highlights how difficult it can be for climate researchers to follow the canons of scientific openness, which require them to make public the data on which they base their conclusions. This is best done via open online archives, such as the ones maintained by the IPCC (http://www.ipcc-data.org) and the US National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html).
Tricky business

But for much crucial information the reality is very different. Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature's policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.

The UEA responded too slowly to the eruption of coverage in the media, but deserves credit for now being publicly supportive of the integrity of its scientists while also holding an independent investigation of its researchers' compliance with Britain's freedom of information requirements (see http://go.nature.com/zRBXRP).

In the end, what the UEA e-mails really show is that scientists are human beings — and that unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance, and tempt them to act in ways that undermine scientific values. Yet it is precisely in such circumstances that researchers should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition. After all, the pressures the UEA e-mailers experienced may be nothing compared with what will emerge as the United States debates a climate bill next year, and denialists use every means at their disposal to undermine trust in scientists and science.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

Between this and what Watermark posted, it's enough to a least give pause to the rational, objective person who initially debunked global warming in general. Also, NO one seems to take into account the amount of deforestation, urbanization, car and industrial smokestack exhaust that has exponentially increased globally over the last 2 centuries.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Global warming is a natural process that fluctuates almost consistently throughout earth's history. It is a fact of nature, however human output of greenhouse gasses has effected it, just not as radically has some would like us all to believe. Epicurus is on the right track here. We do need to watch ourselves and take steps to improve our impact on our earth, but taking scientists words “as Gospel” as he put it is a mistake.

If you want more information on this there is a good article from BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/green_room/8390388.stm

Greenhouse gases are essential for life to exist on this planet. Without the greenhouse effect, we couldn't survive on Earth. Yes, man does output 'greenhouse gases' ...every mammal outputs carbon dioxide when it exhales, and mammals have done so for millions of years. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is measured in hundreds of parts per million, which is nominal to begin with, but mankind's contribution through industrialization is only about 5% of that nominal amount. In other words, the amount of man-made CO2 in our atmosphere, is almost untraceable, and certainly not worth the untold trillions of dollars they are talking about spending to reduce it!

You've been fed a load of absolute malarkey!

 

[Atticus]

Where did you get the information that we only supply 5%? I would like to look into your source. Besides that though, what do you plan to do about our expansion and the loss of forests? Even if it really is that low, eventually it will catch up to us. I am by far trying to justify the money being spent to reduce it, I am simply saying we do need to look into it and watch our prints on the earth.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Where did you get the information that we only supply 5%? I would like to look into your source. Besides that though, what do you plan to do about our expansion and the loss of forests? Even if it really is that low, eventually it will catch up to us. I am by far trying to justify the money being spent to reduce it, I am simply saying we do need to look into it and watch our prints on the earth.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256

Read this and educate yourself. Forests NEED carbon dioxide!! CO2 helps all plant life to grow and flourish! Increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will cause ALL plant life on the planet to thrive.

We are responsible for about 5% of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the rest comes from other natural sources, including our own breath! Every time we exhale, we emit carbon dioxide. Humans convert oxygen and nitrogen into carbon dioxide when they breathe, all mammals do, and they always have, for as long as mammals have existed on the planet!

 

[Damocles]

Yeah, because cartoons are always the measure of science... We can measure all reality by cartoons, from them we learn that some people are from different planets and can fly so fast they can turn back time. Some create technology to get their wheelchair bound behind into the superhero business, and that arguments about global warming mean that we'll all be swimming in the ocean in the future rather than driving flying cars. We also learn that penguins can talk, and they have anxiety closets. That little boys' stuffed animals can speak when parents aren't around, and that kids never get any older.

 

[tinfoil]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256

Read this and educate yourself. Forests NEED carbon dioxide!! CO2 helps all plant life to grow and flourish! Increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will cause ALL plant life on the planet to thrive.

We are responsible for about 5% of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the rest comes from other natural sources, including our own breath! Every time we exhale, we emit carbon dioxide. Humans convert oxygen and nitrogen into carbon dioxide when they breathe, all mammals do, and they always have, for as long as mammals have existed on the planet!

I find it hilarious that warmers don't know this simple fact despite it having been repeated for a decade or more.

 

[tinfoil]

Where did you get the information that we only supply 5%? I would like to look into your source. Besides that though, what do you plan to do about our expansion and the loss of forests? Even if it really is that low, eventually it will catch up to us. I am by far trying to justify the money being spent to reduce it, I am simply saying we do need to look into it and watch our prints on the earth.

If you're going to talk science stuff, don't you think you should be aware of the basic facts?

 

[Onceler]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256

Read this and educate yourself. Forests NEED carbon dioxide!! CO2 helps all plant life to grow and flourish! Increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will cause ALL plant life on the planet to thrive.

We are responsible for about 5% of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, the rest comes from other natural sources, including our own breath! Every time we exhale, we emit carbon dioxide. Humans convert oxygen and nitrogen into carbon dioxide when they breathe, all mammals do, and they always have, for as long as mammals have existed on the planet!

This is overly simplistic. You're just as guilty as some warmers of mythologizing & propoganda.

CO2 is necessary, but is also toxic at a certain level. It's way too simple-minded to just make some sort of argument that CO2 is good, so more CO2 is better....

 

[Cypress]

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256

Read this and educate yourself. Forests NEED carbon dioxide!! CO2 helps all plant life to grow and flourish! Increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will cause ALL plant life on the planet to thrive.
....
Every time we exhale, we emit carbon dioxide. Humans convert oxygen and nitrogen into carbon dioxide when they breathe, all mammals do, and they always have, for as long as mammals have existed on the planet!

1/3

Nobody gives a shit about your tomato garden Dr. Science. Frankly, I'm astonished the flat earth climate denialists aren't a tad worried that they are firmly in lock step with you on this issue.

I have to assume you only studied creation science when you were home schooled; and this board has been productive habitat for your forays into scientific ignorance. But, leaving all other ecological effects of increased atmospheric CO2 aside, I'm going to explain to you in pictoral format why increased CO2 could have detrimental consequences on a planetary scale.

I don't suppose your homeschooling taught you chemistry, and if you don't understand what this means, you should leave all discussions of science to people who have at least a rudimentary knowlege of it.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

1/3

Nobody gives a shit about your tomato garden Dr. Science. Frankly, I'm astonished the flat earth climate denialists aren't a tad worried that they are firmly in lock step with you on this issue.

I have to assume you only studied creation science when you were home schooled; and this board has been productive habitat for your forays into scientific ignorance. But, leaving all other ecological effects of increased atmospheric CO2 aside, I'm going to explain to you in pictoral format why increased CO2 could have detrimental consequences on a planetary scale.

I don't suppose your homeschooling taught you chemistry, and if you don't understand what this means, you should leave all discussions of science to people who have at least a rudimentary knowlege of it.

tell me something essential, Cypress.....let's assume for the sake of argument that human activity will add 1 degree of temperature to the annual average for the next year.....

what is the annual average for next year going to be?......will it be higher than last year or lower.....are we still in a period of warming or have temperatures begun to drop?.....where are we in the global temperature cycle?......if you cannot tell me the answer to those questions (and you can't) then you cannot argue a successful case for global warming....

can you tell me why liberals don't drop the issue they will never be able to prove and simply argue that we ought to stop polluting?.......

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This is overly simplistic. You're just as guilty as some warmers of mythologizing & propoganda.

CO2 is necessary, but is also toxic at a certain level. It's way too simple-minded to just make some sort of argument that CO2 is good, so more CO2 is better....

LOL... OXYGEN is toxic at a certain level, FOOL!

There is nothing simple minded about this at all, it's basic science. Carbon dioxide is emitted by every mammal that has ever existed on this planet. Think about that a moment, every mammal that has ever lived on Earth, spent its entire life, producing CO2! If it were "dangerous" to our atmosphere, we would have all been dead a LONG time ago!

The link I posted, shows where they have done experiments with plants, using higher concentrations of CO2. The results were astounding increases in rates of growth and general health of plants, in higher CO2 atmospheres. We know for a fact, most plants on Earth, evolved in a much higher concentration of CO2, and some botanists would argue that until recently, our plants were starving for CO2.

According to the Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA), carbon dioxide doesn't pose a risk to human health until it is over 5,000 parts per million. No climatologist has ever predicted our CO2 levels could or would rise to that level. It is currently at 360 ppm.

 

[Onceler]

"LOL... OXYGEN is toxic at a certain level, FOOL! "

That's true.

Are you suggesting that only one element or molecule can be toxic at a certain level?

 

[ib1yysguy]

Wow. In 100 years some researcher is going to stumble upon this forum and highlight Dixie's arguments as quintessential embodiments of the ignorance that led to Florida disappearing underwater.

 

[Onceler]

The rest of that is total junk science, btw.

The fact that CO2 is good and necessary for plants doesn't mean that more CO2 is better, for plants or anything.

Simple-minded.

 

[ib1yysguy]

"LOL... OXYGEN is toxic at a certain level, FOOL! "

That's true.

Are you suggesting that only one element or molecule can be toxic at a certain level?

Oncy, every plant that has ever existed has emitted Oxygen. If oxygen were bad then we'd have been dead long ago! Therefore, oxygen isn't bad.