Hackers Modern Robin Hood?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='30 November 2009 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1259614380' post='2012102']
Well if your right, heads will roll, but I dont see that coming. I suspect nothing will come of this and that you are making this into something it is not. But we will see.
[/quote]
If heads don't roll, I won't be surprised. The reputation of too many power players are at stake.

This is something big. For the science community, this is the Church's sex scandal and Galileo controversy wrapped into one major event. (And how often do we hear about those events?!) There are many parallels.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='29 November 2009 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1259538244' post='2011489']
The consensus on global warming and global climate change is almost universally accepted, but less certain is how much humanity is responsible for these changes. It is possible that the warming trend was more natural than human caused. But to dismiss the entirety of the world’s research and almost universal assessment that there is something changing, which at one time including a warming trend, would be unfounded.

To blindly trust someone who claims they illegally stole this information seems unwise, moreover when the investigation into this supposed illegal activity isn't completed. It is still in the realm of possibility that this is fabricated itself. If the investigation finds that these illegally obtained documents are legitimate, it may be reason to suspect that people may have been exaggerating information to manufacture an exacerbated crisis. It does not necessarily suggest that no crisis exists in the first place.

But you are right, this is very interesting news...The Theory of Evolution taught in Catholic Schools and is found acceptable to the Catholic Church, we can even find Popes defending and supporting the Theory of Evolution. So no it wouldn’t be a "[i]card to play[/i]”.
[/quote]

Actually, the "consensus" isn't even real because of the work to shut down any opposition to global climate change and also to demean those who question it. Science is about asking questions as kamiller42 so well put it.

Of course the climate is changing. It has never been static. Arizona was once tropical. Glaciers once covered almost a third of the land. They haven't grown grapes in Greenland in centuries. What caused the change then? Could it be that we humans are not in control of everything? Certainly we like to think we are. If we are now the cause of climate change then how did all the previous changes happen and what caused those forces to weaken?

I have a theory as to motivation as well. Not only is it money, and prestige but also ideology that caused this.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mercy me' date='30 November 2009 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1259629179' post='2012271']Actually, the "consensus" isn't even real because of the work to shut down any opposition to global climate change and also to demean those who question it. Science is about asking questions as kamiller42 so well put it.[/quote]Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. In the Scientific community, moreover those fields devoted to the study of the global environment and climate, have a consensus that global warming is very real and is happening right now. Which if you want to argue that not all these scientists think that climate change is human caused, [b]I agree and this can be proven[/b], but there is almost no large group of real scientists who are suggesting our climate is not changing. These people who want to deny the whole of climate change or global warming are not as much skeptics as much as they are in denial.

[quote name='Mercy me' date='30 November 2009 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1259629179' post='2012271']Of course the climate is changing. It has never been static. Arizona was once tropical. Glaciers once covered almost a third of the land. They haven't grown grapes in Greenland in centuries. What caused the change then? Could it be that we humans are not in control of everything? Certainly we like to think we are. If we are now the cause of climate change then how did all the previous changes happen and what caused those forces to weaken?[/quote]If you think the climate is changing then you are agreeing with these scientists and what I wrote before. [b]Good work![/b]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

So you’re telling me that a group of supposed hackers steal private information, which then release all this information onto the Internet, and no one on this message board is questioning their motivation? So then out of thousands of documents, thousands of records, thousands of emails they find a few semi-questionable entries that they capitalize on, which at best could be described as taken out of context.

After reviewing all the leaked information, [b]University of East Anglia[/b] commented: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way."

After reviewing all the leaked information, [b]Union of Concerned Scientists[/b] commented: "Unfortunately for these conspiracy theorists, what the e-mails show are simply scientists at work, grappling with key issues, and displaying the full range of emotions and motivations characteristic of any urgent endeavor. Any suggestions that these e-mails will affect public and policymakers' understanding of climate science give far too much credence to blog chatter and boastful spin from groups opposed to addressing climate change."

After reviewing all the leaked information, [b]Computerworld Magazine[/b] commented: "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' (Medieval Warm Period), 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."

Looking at the information available to me, the only people making a big fuss about this are those who are apart of an industry who are geared to make money from this kind of manufactured press coverage. But of course, we don’t question that kind of motivation; we only question all the scientists in the world who propose climate change in one way or another. Well, it sounds like some of you didn’t even need this leaking of harmless emails to convince you.

But like I said, there is sufficient reason to investigate and sufficient reason to have some concerns about the content of those emails, which if there is anything as glimmering as a smoking gun in those there will be action taken. Which so far, it sounds like other than a collective yawn from the world’s scientific community on the leaked information, that’s all your going to get. It sounds like the only real hype is, really that people see something here that there simply isn’t. But, like I said again before too, [b]we will see what happens[/b].

Edited December 1, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Didacus]

Lets not forget the Vatican, that is the Magisterium, is infallible in matters of FAITH and MORALS - not scientific questions. They unfortunately have the capacity of being fooled by these scienthugs like everyone else.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='30 November 2009 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1259633009' post='2012307']
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. In the Scientific community, moreover those fields devoted to the study of the global environment and climate, have a consensus that global warming is very real and is happening right now. Which if you want to argue that not all these scientists think that climate change is human caused, [b]I agree and this can be proven[/b], but there is almost no large group of real scientists who are suggesting our climate is not changing. These people who want to deny the whole of climate change or global warming are not as much skeptics as much as they are in denial.[/quote]
I have not read about one scientist skeptical of global warming deny the climate changes. That would be like deny there are seasons in the year or that weather changes day to day. I believe the climate changes over time, but not in anthropogenic climate changes.

Here is the text of one petition signed by 31,000+ scientists:

[quote]We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

[url="http://www.oism.org/pproject/"]Source[/url][/quote]

This is not what the criminal scientists, Mann, Jones, et. al. and the IPCC believe.

[quote]So you’re telling me that a group of supposed hackers steal private information, which then release all this information onto the Internet, and no one on this message board is questioning their motivation? So then out of thousands of documents, thousands of records, thousands of emails they find a few semi-questionable entries that they capitalize on, which at best could be described as taken out of context.

After reviewing all the leaked information, [b]University of East Anglia[/b] commented: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way."

After reviewing all the leaked information, [b]Union of Concerned Scientists[/b] commented: "Unfortunately for these conspiracy theorists, what the e-mails show are simply scientists at work, grappling with key issues, and displaying the full range of emotions and motivations characteristic of any urgent endeavor. Any suggestions that these e-mails will affect public and policymakers' understanding of climate science give far too much credence to blog chatter and boastful spin from groups opposed to addressing climate change."[/quote]
Of course the UEA and UCS would say "no big deal." They were the ones busted and/or have a stake in the global warming hoax thriving.

"Taken of context" has been their excuse, but if you read the emails, you find their excuse doesn't wash. It's more than a few emails. It has also been found the code used by their modeling software has been doctored to get the results they wanted.

How many emails do you need to prove criminal intent? There's enough. And what was taken was what was not deleted. One email warned scientists to write nothing lest it be made public one day. Emails ordering the deletion of emails was sent out to cover tracks. No telling how much more there would have been. And reports are this stuff is happening at other sites.

[quote]After reviewing all the leaked information, [b]Computerworld Magazine[/b] commented: "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' (Medieval Warm Period), 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."[/quote]
Computerworld? Really? This is what it's come to? The author's bias is fomenting in this computer magazine. No, no conspiracy, just collusion.

Here is a sampling of the emails, and let the people judge if they are cooking the books and suppressing data.

[quote][font="Arial Black"]Manipulation of evidence:[/font]

[i] 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 from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.[/i]

[font="Arial Black"]Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:[/font]

[i] 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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.[/i]

[font="Arial Black"]Suppression of evidence:[/font]

[i] Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
[/i]
[font="Arial Black"]Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:[/font]

[i] Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the croutons out of him. Very tempted.[/i]

[font="Arial Black"]Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):[/font]

[i] ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….[/i]

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

[i] “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”[/i]

[url="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/"]Source[/url]
[/quote]

[quote]Looking at the information available to me, the only people making a big fuss about this are those who are apart of an industry who are geared to make money from this kind of manufactured press coverage. But of course, we don’t question that kind of motivation; we only question all the scientists in the world who propose climate change in one way or another. Well, it sounds like some of you didn’t even need this leaking of harmless emails to convince you.

But like I said, there is sufficient reason to investigate and sufficient reason to have some concerns about the content of those emails, which if there is anything as glimmering as a smoking gun in those there will be action taken. Which so far, it sounds like other than a collective yawn from the world’s scientific community on the leaked information, that’s all your going to get. It sounds like the only real hype is, really that people see something here that there simply isn’t. But, like I said again before too, [b]we will see what happens[/b].[/quote]
Making money from manufactured press coverage? Sounds like the global warming alarmists, the chicken littles.

The emails vindicate.

Of course there is a yawn from the many who have a vested in interest (grant $$$) in global warming. Expected something else? These criminal scientists are major players in the global warming movement. They influence the UN and other organizations. This is no small crime.

[kamiller42]

Breaking news...

Penn State opens investigation.
University of East Anglia opens investigation. Climategate scientist Phil Jones steps while investigation is carried out.
Hearings begin on Wed on Capitol Hill.

Enjoy... (The bald man is another Climategate scientist Michael "Hockey Stick Chart" Mann. "Hide the decline" is credited to Phil Jones.)

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk[/media]

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='01 December 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1259701952' post='2012680']I have not read about one scientist skeptical of global warming deny the climate changes. That would be like deny there are seasons in the year or that weather changes day to day. I believe the climate changes over time, but not in anthropogenic climate changes. Sources?

Here is the text of one petition signed by 31,000+ scientists:[/quote]If you think global warming and climate change are somehow DRASTICALLY diffrent, then you need to go do more study... Its almost exactly the SAME thing.[quote name='kamiller42' date='01 December 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1259701952' post='2012680']This is not what the criminal scientists, Mann, Jones, et. al. and the IPCC believe.[/quote]Soruces...?[quote name='kamiller42' date='01 December 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1259701952' post='2012680']Of course the UEA and UCS would say "no big deal." They were the ones busted and/or have a stake in the global warming hoax thriving.[/quote]No, go back and read the first article please. Otherwise, please provide sources.[quote name='kamiller42' date='01 December 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1259701952' post='2012680']"Taken of context" has been their excuse, but if you read the emails, you find their excuse doesn't wash. It's more than a few emails. It has also been found the code used by their modeling software has been doctored to get the results they wanted.[/quote]That is a circular argument and provide sources... why is it the small groups of NON-SCIENTISTS who are yelling at the top of their lungs about this? Show me the scientific community that is upset about this?[quote name='kamiller42' date='01 December 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1259701952' post='2012680']How many emails do you need to prove criminal intent? There's enough. And what was taken was what was not deleted. One email warned scientists to write nothing lest it be made public one day. Emails ordering the deletion of emails was sent out to cover tracks. No telling how much more there would have been. And reports are this stuff is happening at other sites.[/quote]To prove criminal intent or anything wrong will require more than innuendo and circumstantial evidence, which doesn't appear to be here. Now circumstantial evidence may be enough to suspect wrong doing and warrant investigation, which is already happening as it should be. But to suggest that out of the thousands of emails, a few out of context remarks can be construed to mean what your trying to make it mean, would be beyond most people’s wildest imaginations...

As for your accusations, provide empirical facts not opinions, otherwise it remains just your opinions and nothing more. If you want to substantiate your opinion, perhaps it can be more than just your opinion, but what I want is more than just “kamiller42” perspective on the world.[quote name='kamiller42' date='01 December 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1259701952' post='2012680']Computerworld? Really? This is what it's come to? The author's bias is fomenting in this computer magazine. No, no conspiracy, just collusion.

Here is a sampling of the emails, and let the people judge if they are cooking the books and suppressing data.[/quote]There is no possible way to for a reader here, you and me included, to sift through this much information without some expertise in the people and research being conducted. What may seem questionable to you could end up to be perfectly innocent, and honestly you are doing exactly what I objected to earlier, you are finding very specific parts of emails out of the context of what was written before or after, to whom or from whom, to somehow distort this into something that it may not be.

I just read what you provided from the supposed emails, I honestly don’t see anything here that can be taken as what you are presenting it as. And I would bet that if you put these quotations in context, it would make all the more sense...[quote name='kamiller42' date='01 December 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1259701952' post='2012680']Making money from manufactured press coverage? Sounds like the global warming alarmists, the chicken littles.

The emails vindicate.

Of course there is a yawn from the many who have a vested in interest (grant $$$) in global warming. Expected something else? These criminal scientists are major players in the global warming movement. They influence the UN and other organizations. This is no small crime.
[/quote]So we are free to question and raise suspicions about the world’s scientists conducting research on climate change, but not these hackers or these non-scientists who are trying to contort this into something it may not be. We are free to find ways to incriminate to these scientists, whom you disagree with personally, but not the people who are trying to incriminate them. I think this is lopped sided and I hope that at least someone understands the dichotomy involved in this thought process.

Before you said that the world’s scientists were fooled by a select few, now it is a masterminded secret conspiracy of all the world’s scientists. Personally this sounds like paranoia to me. There is an investigation and it is warranted, but from all the preliminary facts of what has happened there is nothing except innuendo to suggest that anything criminal or wrong has been going on. Why can you not be content with waiting for facts or letting the scientific community handle this?

What do you propose us do, burn down the universities and climate research centers so this massive secret conspiracy will be stopped here and now? And may I remind you that this is the open mic section and [b]not debate[/b], I am free to express my opinions and unless you are going to do more than shout your opinions at me, then I think our discussion is concluded. Thank you for sharing...

Edited December 2, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='01 December 2009 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1259716332' post='2012818']

What do you propose us do, burn down the universities and climate research centers so this massive secret conspiracy will be stopped here and now? And may I remind you that this is the open mic section and [b]not debate[/b], I am free to express my opinions and unless you are going to do more than shout your opinions at me, then I think our discussion is concluded. Thank you for sharing...
[/quote]
Sounds like someone needs a downer

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='01 December 2009 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1259716332' post='2012818']
If you think global warming and climate change are somehow DRASTICALLY diffrent, then you need to go do more study... Its almost exactly the SAME thing.
[/quote]
Climate change is the new term the global warming alarmists want us to adopt. It became vogue when they saw declining temperatures mocking their global warming predictions. I don't buy their attempt to change the debate by changing terms. When they say climate change, they mean anthropogenic climate change, i.e. global warming. Their Eucharist was the hockey stick chart when they claimed proved rising CO2 levels created by man was making the planet hotter. This is the scam.

There is nothing wrong with studying the climate and its history, but do it under the rigors of real science and not junk science.

[quote]Soruces...?No, go back and read the first article please. Otherwise, please provide sources.That is a circular argument and provide sources... why is it the small groups of NON-SCIENTISTS who are yelling at the top of their lungs about this? Show me the scientific community that is upset about this?To prove criminal intent or anything wrong will require more than innuendo and circumstantial evidence, which doesn't appear to be here. Now circumstantial evidence may be enough to suspect wrong doing and warrant investigation, which is already happening as it should be. But to suggest that out of the thousands of emails, a few out of context remarks can be construed to mean what your trying to make it mean, would be beyond most people’s wildest imaginations... [/quote]
UEA, University of East Anglia, is one of the meccas of global warming "research." So, yea, the university has an interest in the global warming movement. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit"]Here's your source[/url].

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a group of liberal scientists. Of course, they support global warming fear mongering and have other [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists#Issue_stances"]several leftist ideas[/url]. So yes, they have a vested interest in the global warming movement. [url="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/"]Here another source for you[/url].

The UCS are a bunch of hypocrites. They were at the forefront of crying about the Bush administration supposedly reworking scientific conclusions to support a viewpoint. Yet, when their own people are busted red handed cooking actual scientific data, they say "no big deal." Credibility: 0.

[quote]As for your accusations, provide empirical facts not opinions, otherwise it remains just your opinions and nothing more. If you want to substantiate your opinion, perhaps it can be more than just your opinion, but what I want is more than just “kamiller42” perspective on the world.There is no possible way to for a reader here, you and me included, to sift through this much information without some expertise in the people and research being conducted. What may seem questionable to you could end up to be perfectly innocent, and honestly you are doing exactly what I objected to earlier, you are finding very specific parts of emails out of the context of what was written before or after, to whom or from whom, to somehow distort this into something that it may not be.[/quote]
Quotes from the actual emails is pretty good empirical evidence. And while you and I may not have time to go through all of the data, there are many people who are. You can read and actually search through the emails [url="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/"]here[/url].

How can people make some conclusions so quickly?
1) The data has been out for over a week.
2) All crimes have easily identifiable markers, especially attempts to conceal evidence.
3) Some of the emails need no explanation, like the one where the scientist was gleeful at the death of a global warming skeptic.

[quote]I just read what you provided from the supposed emails, I honestly don’t see anything here that can be taken as what you are presenting it as. And I would bet that if you put these quotations in context, it would make all the more sense...So we are free to question and raise suspicions about the world’s scientists conducting research on climate change, but not these hackers or these non-scientists who are trying to contort this into something it may not be. We are free to find ways to incriminate to these scientists, whom you disagree with personally, but not the people who are trying to incriminate them. I think this is lopped sided and I hope that at least someone understands the dichotomy involved in this thought process.[/quote]

You keep saying non-scientists are making these judgments. As I said before, some patterns of crime do not need a science degree to decipher. Secondly, the 31,000+ scientists would signed the petition would disagree with your assessment that it's no big deal. Third, there are those in the scientific community who are upset about this. [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/02/taking_liberties/entry5860171.shtml"]3 here[/url]. [url="http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573"]Here's another[/url].

If you prefer to listen rather than read, you can listen to another upset scientist.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac[/media]

There are many scientists dismayed by what has happened, even those who believe global warming. It's not just non-scientists.

[quote]Before you said that the world’s scientists were fooled by a select few, now it is a masterminded secret conspiracy of all the world’s scientists. Personally this sounds like paranoia to me. There is an investigation and it is warranted, but from all the preliminary facts of what has happened there is nothing except innuendo to suggest that anything criminal or wrong has been going on. Why can you not be content with waiting for facts or letting the scientific community handle this?[/quote]
Where there's smoke, there's fire. The skeptics, scientists and non-scientists, have been vindicated. Global warming scientists have been cooking the data to support an ideology. The hacker gave the world a chance to view just the tip of the iceberg (if any of those are left). Is there are conspiracy? No. A collusion? Yes. Influential pockets of scientists like at UEA fed other well intentioned scientists false data resulting in invalid conclusions. Those scientists are innocent and not necessarily part of a collusion. The collusion is between the pockets of influence.

You brought up the hacker and how the data was obtained. How the data was taken, whether inside or outside job or whether system security was circumvented or the university just left its fly open, is a valid topic and is being handle by proper authorities, but those actions are extremely minor compared to the damage caused by this perversion of science.

[quote] What do you propose us do, burn down the universities and climate research centers so this massive secret conspiracy will be stopped here and now? And may I remind you that this is the open mic section and [b]not debate[/b], I am free to express my opinions and unless you are going to do more than shout your opinions at me, then I think our discussion is concluded. Thank you for sharing...
[/quote]
What we should do...

First, immediately cease all legislation related to global warming. Abandon cap & trade and other expensive measures. They are based on lies.

Second, call for investigations into other major climate research centers. Obtain all research data and publish it for the public to read. "Transparency" is the word of the times. How about some with science? Publish it on the internet; that's what it was built for.

Third, allow for the science community to re-examine the data from item 2. Open reviews to reassess where we really are in regards to the status of the climate. Most of all, allowing dissenting opinion to enter the debate.

Fourth, issue charges against the charlatans who have knowingly deceived the public.

That's a start.

By all means, continue to express your opinions, and I will continue to express the facts.

[kamiller42]

[img]http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/091125boklores1.jpg[/img]

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='02 December 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1259774122' post='2013199']Climate change is the new term the global warming alarmists want us to adopt. It became vogue when they saw declining temperatures mocking their global warming predictions. I don't buy their attempt to change the debate by changing terms. When they say climate change, they mean anthropogenic climate change, i.e. global warming. Their Eucharist was the hockey stick chart when they claimed proved rising CO2 levels created by man was making the planet hotter. This is the scam.

There is nothing wrong with studying the climate and its history, but do it under the rigors of real science and not junk science.[/quote]Climate change simply refers to how climate is changing in different ways in different parts of the world, global warming refers to a trend in our history of global temperatures increasing. Which considering that we are not in an ice age increased temperatures is to be expected, what is at question is the influence of man, which the term “global warming” does not intrinsically suggest man’s influence.

So in my personal opinion your objections are moot because you are not addressing what I write, rather what you want to think I’m writing because it is more convenient to you, and you are expressing ideas that are not compatible with the subject.[quote name='kamiller42' date='02 December 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1259774122' post='2013199']UEA, University of East Anglia, is one of the meccas of global warming "research." So, yea, the university has an interest in the global warming movement. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit"]Here's your source[/url].

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a group of liberal scientists. Of course, they support global warming fear mongering and have other [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists#Issue_stances"]several leftist ideas[/url]. So yes, they have a vested interest in the global warming movement. [url="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/"]Here another source for you[/url].

The UCS are a bunch of hypocrites. They were at the forefront of crying about the Bush administration supposedly reworking scientific conclusions to support a viewpoint. Yet, when their own people are busted red handed cooking actual scientific data, they say "no big deal." Credibility: 0.[/quote]You accused them of criminal behavior and activity, if you have no real evidence to support this claim then withdraw it. Innuendo and circumstantial evidence may be enough for concerns or suspicion, but not enough for an accusation without being rash. So [b]please[/b] provide “[b][u]relevant[/u][/b]” sources.[quote name='kamiller42' date='02 December 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1259774122' post='2013199']Quotes from the actual emails is pretty good empirical evidence. And while you and I may not have time to go through all of the data, there are many people who are. You can read and actually search through the emails [url="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/"]here[/url].

How can people make some conclusions so quickly?
1) The data has been out for over a week.
2) All crimes have easily identifiable markers, especially attempts to conceal evidence.
3) Some of the emails need no explanation, like the one where the scientist was gleeful at the death of a global warming skeptic.[/quote]From what you quoted before there is no evidence of any of the activities that you insist are here, but because you apparently have such distain for these individuals it is easy to understand why you are so adamant to incriminate these individuals for valid or invalid reasons. There is reason to investigate and the investigation is being carried out.

But your quotes from the emails are at best could be described as an attempt to browbeat and incriminate these individuals, by taking these quotes completely out of context with the implication that there MUST be something criminal going on.
[quote name='kamiller42' date='02 December 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1259774122' post='2013199']You keep saying non-scientists are making these judgments. As I said before, some patterns of crime do not need a science degree to decipher. Secondly, the 31,000+ scientists would signed the petition would disagree with your assessment that it's no big deal. Third, there are those in the scientific community who are upset about this. [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/02/taking_liberties/entry5860171.shtml"]3 here[/url]. [url="http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573"]Here's another[/url].

There are many scientists dismayed by what has happened, even those who believe global warming. It's not just non-scientists.[/quote]I actually read your two articles, the only scientist (that I can look up) who is mentioned by name who expresses any concerns is Hans von Storch, who stated himself “[i]Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.[/i]” So the reason Hans von Storch is vocal about his concerns is because he personally does not like these researchers. Well for someone who is trying to argue global warming is a hoax you sure choose the wrong article to post.

And the "31,000+ scientists" wsigning a petition against "man-made global warming", not global warming all around or climate change all around, their not even suggesting man doesn’t affect the environment. Their simply putting forward that the idea that man is the soul culprit isn't universally accepted, which it isn't, and maybe if you had been reading my posts you might of caught that bit of information by now.[quote name='kamiller42' date='02 December 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1259774122' post='2013199']Where there's smoke, there's fire. The skeptics, scientists and non-scientists, have been vindicated. Global warming scientists have been cooking the data to support an ideology. The hacker gave the world a chance to view just the tip of the iceberg (if any of those are left). Is there are conspiracy? No. A collusion? Yes. Influential pockets of scientists like at UEA fed other well intentioned scientists false data resulting in invalid conclusions. Those scientists are innocent and not necessarily part of a collusion. The collusion is between the pockets of influence.

You brought up the hacker and how the data was obtained. How the data was taken, whether inside or outside job or whether system security was circumvented or the university just left its fly open, is a valid topic and is being handle by proper authorities, but those actions are extremely minor compared to the damage caused by this perversion of science.[/quote][b]Collusion[/b]: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

[b]Conspiracy[/b]: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

No we can’t use the word “[i]conspiracy[/i]” because that might let people know what you’re peddling to them. By looking at these two definitions between conspiracy and collusion, if there is any major distinction, for the purpose of our discussion I can’t see it.

So what you are describing, factually based on what you describe, is a massive worldwide secret conspiracy that has fooled the entire scientific community and world governments, that only those in denial can be safe from their tainted touch.
I’m sorry I personally can’t find myself in alignment with such ideas, but if it makes you feel better you can pretend I’m apart of the evil conspiracy and that I’m in fact a secret agent for the evil empire that is here to usurp your way of life. Then again, I shouldn’t say that, because seeing how easily you propose this paranoia you might just believe me. [b]Remember[/b], all your base belong to us!

Don’t worry, when Buy-n-Large comes we will find you a nice BnL hover chair aboard our Galactic Executive Star-liners[quote name='kamiller42' date='02 December 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1259774122' post='2013199']What we should do...

First, immediately cease all legislation related to global warming. Abandon cap & trade and other expensive measures. They are based on lies.

Second, call for investigations into other major climate research centers. Obtain all research data and publish it for the public to read. "Transparency" is the word of the times. How about some with science? Publish it on the internet; that's what it was built for.

Third, allow for the science community to re-examine the data from item 2. Open reviews to reassess where we really are in regards to the status of the climate. Most of all, allowing dissenting opinion to enter the debate.

Fourth, issue charges against the charlatans who have knowingly deceived the public.

That's a start.

By all means, continue to express your opinions, and I will continue to express the facts.[/quote]For your proposals in order, I’m not a fan of caps on trade, but that’s something you need to bring to your representatives and government. This is really a dimension of the political scheme of the “man-made global warming” issue, its NOT intrinsically apart of the scientific debate.

For your second proposal, violating individual’s privacy such as emails like the hackers did, I’m not a fan of at all either. I have this funny notion that people have inherent individual liberties and that we live in a free society, open transparency laws are good but violating people’s privacy isn't.

For your third proposal, that just about already happens and most scientists are so busy with their work they don’t have the time to have redundant checking out to the five hundredth time to satisfy your denial. But peer review already happens and dissenting opinions are in the debate, but it is sort of like “Intelligent Design” in the cultural debate on Evolution. Regardless of how many times the scientific community, governments, or even the Church clarify that “Intelligent Design” is not science there are still those who insist that it is. Which oddly it’s still allowed in the debate though not being science. So if your asking for objecting opinions, already there, if you want people to take those opinions seriously that’s a matter of the creditability of the opinion itself.

And for you stating facts, if you want to pretend you are giving me purely facts then you are welcome to. If you want me to think that your opinions are so incorrigible, narrow, stubborn, and the only possible conclusions a reasonable person can make; then you certainly haven’t flattered me or anyone else. Thank you though, it is always a pleasure...

Edited December 2, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='02 December 2009 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1259780156' post='2013255']
Climate change simply refers to how climate is changing in different ways in different parts of the world, global warming refers to a trend in our history of global temperatures increasing. Which considering that we are not in an ice age increased temperatures is to be expected, what is at question is the influence of man, which the term “global warming” does not intrinsically suggest man’s influence.[/quote]
"In recent usage, [b]especially in the context of environmental policy[/b], [i]climate change[/i] usually refers to changes in modern climate (see [i]global warming[/i])." [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change"]Source[/url] No need to be obtuse about it.

[quote]So in my personal opinion your objections are moot because you are not addressing what I write, rather what you want to think I’m writing because it is more convenient to you, and you are expressing ideas that are not compatible with the subject.You accused them of criminal behavior and activity, if you have no real evidence to support this claim then withdraw it. Innuendo and circumstantial evidence may be enough for concerns or suspicion, but not enough for an accusation without being rash. So [b]please[/b] provide “[b][u]relevant[/u][/b]” sources.From what you quoted before there is no evidence of any of the activities that you insist are here, but because you apparently have such distain for these individuals it is easy to understand why you are so adamant to incriminate these individuals for valid or invalid reasons. There is reason to investigate and the investigation is being carried out.[/quote]
Crime is not limited to the legal sense. These scientists committed ethical crimes, crimes against science, and time will if legal crimes come to fruition. IMO, they are in legal hot water too.

[quote]But your quotes from the emails are at best could be described as an attempt to browbeat and incriminate these individuals, by taking these quotes completely out of context with the implication that there MUST be something criminal going on.[/quote]
They are not out of context. You can read them yourself. Here's one where they are talking about keeping dissenting opinion papers.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
[url="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt"]Source[/url]

[quote]I actually read your two articles, the only scientist (that I can look up) who is mentioned by name who expresses any concerns is Hans von Storch, who stated himself “[i]Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.[/i]” So the reason Hans von Storch is vocal about his concerns is because he personally does not like these researchers. Well for someone who is trying to argue global warming is a hoax you sure choose the wrong article to post.[/quote]
So he is a global warming alarmist, but also shocked at Climategate because he hates these guys. Do I have that right? Wow. That's a twister.

I provided several other scientists who are dismayed over what these criminal scientists have done. I have showed you many. If you want more, you will have to do your homework on your own.

[quote]And the "31,000+ scientists" wsigning a petition against "man-made global warming", not global warming all around or climate change all around, their not even suggesting man doesn’t affect the environment. Their simply putting forward that the idea that man is the soul culprit isn't universally accepted, which it isn't, and maybe if you had been reading my posts you might of caught that bit of information by now.[b]Collusion[/b]: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose.

[b]Conspiracy[/b]: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

No we can’t use the word “[i]conspiracy[/i]” because that might let people know what you’re peddling to them. By looking at these two definitions between conspiracy and collusion, if there is any major distinction, for the purpose of our discussion I can’t see it. [/quote]
A reminder of the 31,000+ scientist petition..

[quote][b]There is no convincing scientific evidence that human[/b] release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses [b]is causing[/b] or will, in the foreseeable future, [b]cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate[/b]. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. [/quote]

In modern parlance, a conspiracy is thought of as diabolical plan contrived by a single conspirator, the "big boss," the "Man." Collusion is multiple parties working together on a scheme for the benefit of all parties. In a legal sense, the two are very interchangeable, but that is not the sense I am using.

[quote]So what [b]you are[/b] describing, [b]factually[/b] based on what you describe, is a massive worldwide secret conspiracy that has fooled the entire scientific community and world governments, that only those in denial can be safe from their tainted touch.[/quote]
Yes, I am using facts. Thanks for noticing.

[quote]I’m sorry I personally can’t find myself in alignment with such ideas, but if it makes you feel better you can pretend I’m apart of the evil conspiracy and that I’m in fact a secret agent for the evil empire that is here to usurp your way of life. Then again, I shouldn’t say that, because seeing how easily you propose this paranoia you might just believe me. [b]Remember[/b], all your base belong to us! [/quote]
You are certainly in the minority. Enough people, including the university where it all began, thinks there is enough smoke to see whether there is fire. Multiple investigations are under way. Now look who is in denial.

[quote]For your second proposal, violating individual’s privacy such as emails like the hackers did, I’m not a fan of at all either. I have this funny notion that people have inherent individual liberties and that we live in a free society, open transparency laws are good but violating people’s privacy isn't.[/quote]
UEA is a public university. These scientists are performing research using public funds. The emails are on public computer systems. The people wanted to review their work and requested so via the freedom of information act (Penn State side). They were legally required to show their work until they destroyed it, oops, I mean lost it. We asking to look at their publicly funded work, not to drop their pants.

[quote]For your third proposal, that just about already happens and most scientists are so busy with their work they don’t have the time to have redundant checking out to the five hundredth time to satisfy your denial. But peer review already happens and dissenting opinions are in the debate, but it is sort of like “Intelligent Design” in the cultural debate on Evolution. Regardless of how many times the scientific community, governments, or even the Church clarify that “Intelligent Design” is not science there are still those who insist that it is. Which oddly it’s still allowed in the debate though not being science. So if your asking for objecting opinions, already there, if you want people to take those opinions seriously that’s a matter of the creditability of the opinion itself.[/quote]
And how does doctoring data or laughing at the death of someone who dissents does not instill trust so that the opposing opinion abates? I have never seen such a strong defense of junk science.

[Mr.Cat]

When you decide to address what I actually wrote, I will be waiting. This includes previous posts and the last post. Thank you!

Edited December 2, 2009 by Mr.CatholicCat

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='02 December 2009 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1259796403' post='2013384']
When you decide to address what I actually wrote, I will be waiting. This includes previous posts and the last post. Thank you!
[/quote]
My responses addressed directly and sourced.

I thought of another idea: Abandon Copenhagen.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='02 December 2009 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1259810102' post='2013532']My responses addressed directly and sourced.

I thought of another idea: Abandon Copenhagen.[/quote]No, you didn't.