Hackers just killed global warming
- Started
- Last post
- 215 Responses
- GeorgesII0
lowimpact the problem it has been proven that depending of your point of view the glaciers are either melting or growing, the earth is cooling or warming, co2 causes global warming or it is just a natural happening.
In the court of law its it is proven that you fixed your results the case will be trown out.
if you don't agree with the findings of the IPCC you are labeled a pariah, I don't see anyone with a familly to feed or some sincere ego, not jumping in the bandwagon.
btw, these email go back 13 years, I'm a non scientist but I believe my small understanding of the way they manipulate and lie to us on a daily basis is the main reason why at first we should doubt them, come out with our own answers and try to get debate it among ourselves.
remember the baby thrown out of incubators, WMD, we don't torture, the economic crisis is over, golf of tonkin incident, etcSomeone posted this a couple days ago,
"What do you say to a woman with two black eyes?"
- GeorgesII0
for ukit :)
- lowimpakt0
most of the blogs i have just reviewed have picked up in one email from 1999 and without any context have suggested that this amounts to a global fraud perpetrated by communist taxophiles or some sinister political cabal. Even in this thread there is wild accusations ranging from scientist as nazi's to links with the Lisbon referendum.
this is what I mean by public confusion.
THere has been countless examples of real fraud among the climate change deniers. This fraud ranges from evidence of funding by questionable sources to outright lies. There is nothing that I have seen in these emails that proves that evidence of mans impact on climate change is a hoax or that there is any grand political conspiracy.
This is the email from 1999 that all the climate change denier blogs have picked up on.... what is the context?
are the climate change deniers grabbing at straws?
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[sni...
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later
today or first thing tomorrow. 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) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to
hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine
values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N.
The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for
1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil
- ukit0
If global warming is a scam, it's a pretty shitty one.
Why would the elites (or whoever you think is behind it) come up with a plot that involves damaging their own economies? And if they are so eager to do it, why have they been sort of half heartedly trying for a decade or more and unable to get an agreement?
The impression I get is that countries are extremely reluctant to take actions on climate change, not the other way around.
- deathboy0
cant disprove climate change, because guess what change happens. if it gets warmer it will start a cooling trend or vice versa. just dont go all bitch over it. and regarding human impact vs global/cosmic factors its pretty insignificant. just as humans timeline is on this rock. the only people that truly care are the marketers that can make a buck selling bullshit wares for more profit. kudos to those that are efficient and a big fuck you too the douchebags that get all faggy on the issue
- SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE RIGHT WINGER!utopian
- SORRY, MY CAPS LOCK ARE JIZZED DOWN.utopian
- ahahah here for you
http://gadgets.boing…GeorgesII - LOLutopian
- dont get the right winger thing. change happens and i dont see any strong evidence that states human impact is super strongdeathboy
- a limited population could curb human impact and make it mroe manageable but u dont see the whienrs suggesting thatdeathboy
- of course becuase its likely a ethics issue to mandate population controls, i say practice three r's and dont get sucked into the greenwashdeathboy
- sucked into the greenwash. i cant even imagine how u think that view is right wing by any standard definitiondeathboy
- don't be a fag deathboyukit
- be an adult ukit.deathboy
- lowimpakt0
"The impression I get is that countries are extremely reluctant to take actions on climate change, not the other way around. "
this is clear from the current mess and political footdragging on the COP15 negotiations - and the last few decades...
- GeorgesII0
yeah Low, few are the countries that actually started doing something about the environment, there's a rotten culture of over consuming that will take time to curb,
maybe I should have tried a less sensational title and went for
"BREAKING: The elites bilderbergers illuminati attempts to fool us into thinking global warming is NOT a plan to warm the planet in the wait for our global reptilians overlords: anonymous hackers say so "
- ukit0
Personally, I like my bilderburgers well done with bacon, lettuce and a touch of the "secret sauce."
- lowimpakt0
hehehe...
for all their complexity and blustering most political responses to the current crises (financial, cultural, environmental) can be summed up as
- lowimpakt0
i think this is a good post on the issue... (i would say that though)
http://climatedenial.org/2009/11…
The theft of 3,500 e-mails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) shows that deniers have learned lessons from dirty politics and are running a new campaign to undermine public trust in climate scientists. The feeble response from the UEA and the climate science community shows that scientists are still totally underestimating the fragility of that trust and the crucial role it plays in building public belief.
The Importance and fragility of Trust
The lay public, when presented with confusing data and competing arguments about climate change deploy the heuristic (a fancy word for a mentalof short cut) of believing the people they most trust. Trust in the communicator is therefore a crucial precondition for belief in climate change.Unfortunately the three main climate change communicators: politicians, journalists and environmental campaigners, are among the least trusted people in society- fighting it out for bottom place in the ranking with lawyers and car salesmen. No one would pay any attention to them at all if they were not drawing on the aquifer of public trust in scientists.
Climate scientists have always misunderstood the dynamic of public belief and trust. They assume that belief will be built on their data and that public trust is merited by their authority. With the exception of a few outstanding communicators, they often make no attempt to speak to deeper values or make an emotional connection with the public – indeed they see that as contrary to their professional independence.
However, whilst it is true that there is an underlying respect for scientific expertise, there are many other more emotional and contextual components to real trust. We tend to trust people we know, who seem to be like us, who speak to our values and life experience, who appear to have integrity or- that most intangible quality- people whom we seem to like.
The Deniers have always understood this. They use language that is designed to appeal to deeper values (such as freedom, independence, progress). The narrative they tell of being determined (and even persecuted) free thinkers standing against the tide of oppressive and self-interested conformity is designed to create an aura of integrity and trustworthiness.
- Interesting points but I don't know how much public ignorance even matters...the elites of the world can see the writing on the wall and I think the move away from fossil fuels is already beginningukit
- wall and the move away from fossil fuels is already happeningukit
- "Deniers" is a maliciously chosen term with a clear pejorative sound to it. What happened to skeptics? :)raf
- exador10
My wife's brother is a scientist. Climate related studies in fact. He's also a tenured professor.
I've spoken with him a lot about this sort of thing over the past several years, and he's always been pretty frank about it. Climate change is a fact. There are endless variables associated with it, but human ones are a part of the equation. Wishful thinking and politics won't change that.
There are always going to be folks that benefit, or profit from change. Usually the biggest movers and shakers. Bush. War. Oil. Is anyone really surprised that a Bush was involved in a conflict that has helped oil prices skyrocket?...ZOMG! lol...
so of course. we can now look at Gore...is he profiting from all the green initiatives going on now?...ZOMG!?!?! lol..
of COURSE he is....he'd almost be a fool not to.....none of that changes the fact that there is such a thing as climate change, and that it makes sense to switch from fossil fuels. and whichever nation makes the switch the fastest and cleanest will be doing themselves a favour.
Are Gore and others doing all this green conspiracy stuff to make themselves rich?....
my guess is that they were smart enough to see the writing on the wall and got in early, used their connections to trumpet climate change and have been busy reaping the rewards.
someone always benefits.
- PonyBoy0
Conservation and polluting less are indeed good things...
... lying to a global population to rape nations and their people of cash year after year is pretty fucked up... and something to be afraid of.
- But the current fossil fuel-based method is somehow innocent of these things?DrBombay
- they're no different than each other... which makes it wrong on both sidesPonyBoy
- Which one pollutes less?DrBombay
- What is the alternative to either?DrBombay
- not a valid argument at all, dobs - bad is bad...PonyBoy
- We should power everything with fairey dust and skittles then!!! YAY!DrBombay
- So keep on polluting the same with increases every year? That is a valid position.DrBombay
- ukit0
- DrBombay0
This always reminds me of the ant and the grasshopper:
"The fable concerns a grasshopper who has spent the warm months singing away while the ant (or ants in some editions) worked to store up food for winter. When winter arrives, the grasshopper finds itself dying of hunger, and upon asking the ant for food is only rebuked for its idleness. The story is used to teach the virtues of hard work and saving, and the perils of improvidence. Some versions of the fable state a moral at the end, along the lines of: "Idleness brings want", "To work today is to eat tomorrow" or "It is best to prepare for the days of necessity""
- Which is why I don't understand the moniker "Conservative" when speaking on environmental issues.DrBombay
- DrBombay0
The fable was retold on The Muppet Show in the episode guest-starring Bernadette Peters. Sam the Eagle narrates the story which ends with the ant being stepped on and the grasshopper driving his sports car to Florida.
- raf0
It is a beautiful bedtime story DrBombay. It's late and I'm tired, I hope I'm not going to understand the mental shortcut that led you to posting it, it is funnier this way :)