This is so ridiculous. They have been verified by the fucking authors!!
A picture that's worth one thousand stolen E-Mails
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
This is so ridiculous. They have been verified by the fucking authors!!
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Now you've regulated your entire argument into nothing but an agenda, just like those who manipulated the information.
You have yet to explain how mankind is responsible, except for the fact that you FEEL they have.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
They you should reduce the problem, by the sum of 1, and remove yourself from the equation.
Let everyone know when the wake is going to be.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Since they seem to have been "out there" for some time now, how come no ones come forward and declared them false or altered??
What are you going to do, when it's discovered that the evidence was, altered for a political agenda, by the very people who were saying that it was fact??
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
don't you think if they were doctored these email senders would have mentioned something about it by now?......
evince
Truthmatters
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?
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?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Tell me Desh... have the scientists in question given any kind of statement that would suggest THEY think these emails might have been doctored? Or are you simply making up excuses?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I'm pretty sure I would remember emailing someone that I intended to misrepresent data.....at the very least I would remember that I never misrepresented data......
evince
Truthmatters
Not all of the emails have been verified by the people who wrote them, most have.
Now if you thought you did not write what someone claims you did would you verify them?
They did verify most of them as their own writings.
Maybe they are waiting for the diagnostic proof the emails were altered before they proclaim them false?
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
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
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, Superfreak... Science can NOT prove itself! If science proved itself, nuclear fission would not be possible and helicopters could not fly! These are things science indeed "indicated" or "suggested" at one time. Had we assumed science "proved" itself, Einstein would have never discovered the theory of relativity, and nuclear fission would have never happened. It is precisely because science didn't "prove" itself, that he was able to discover something else.
Science is an area of study and knowledge, it is not capable of "proof" or "conclusion", those are parameters established by MEN, not science! It only provides data and information to man, it never presumes, concludes, or proves anything... EVER!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why don't you just shut the fuck up and crawl back under your rock, you fucking hack?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) They have the original emails... they have no need to 'wait' to see if they are false. They can simply check their database.
2) Have THEY suggested that any of the emails were 'altered' or 'false'?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I know it is truly hard for you to suppress your tendency to be a complete fucking moron... but do try. You are playing semantics.
Gravity.... enough said.
Dipshit.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not playing semantics, science doesn't "prove" gravity, in many cases, science can't even explain gravity! Man concludes that gravity exists based on scientific information. We make presumptions and conclusions from science all the time, but the actual "science" does nothing but provide information, WE make the determinations of conclusion and proof from that.
Who's being the moron here?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
you... that is obvious.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Really? Well since I totally schooled your ass, what does that make you?
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Global Warming is a Hoax???
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
AGW is all lies. The emails of the scientists themselves prove it. They're hoaxers, hucksters, and imbeciles.
