Global Warming is Bullsh!t!
 

Someone hacked into one of the main researchers on global warming and there is now lots of speculation that they have been lying about mankind causing (Anthropogenic Global Warming) it.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs


Senate committee calling for investigation.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...2e126&Issue_id

LOL

global warming is not bullshit. it can't be measured over any small period like 20 years reliably though, because there will be small cycles within that period.

what's the motive that these scientists would have for making global warming up, or not admitting that it's not a problem?

Look at all the melting polar ice caps and tell me there's no global warming

CONSPIRACY!!! ;)

What's the motive for them to hide and lie about the data?

It does not surprise me that not everyone in this controversy is acting ethically. It also does not cause me to disbelieve ALL science.

I'm just shocked that it took something like this for most people to realize that manipulation of data is occurring on both sides of the issue.

I just let out 10 days worth of farts I've been holding in to cut down on my greenhouse gas emissions.

Science and Orthodoxy should never be combined, but always are.

I think the reason they wanted to do the nefarious deeds they have done is 1) they believe global warming is occurring, and 2) they believe present data that seems to disconfirm such is a small term trend, but that 3) politically it will be spun as disconfirming so that 4) steps that humanity ought to take right now will not be taken.

But the fact is, they have created an orthodoxy that now appears to be acting in its own self interest like some great many tentacled beast.

$$$$$$$$$$

Research is funded, if findings do not agree with funders funding stop.
When funding stops scientists have to sell their Porsche's

I don't think that's the case.

EDIT: I should say I don't think it's true that "it took something like this for most people to realize that manipulation of data is occurring on both sides of the issue." Several people realized that before this, and as far as I know, this story isn't exactly going to rock the wold of everyone else.

Global warming itself isn't bullshit, it's a natural occurring change that the planet has made for millions/billions of years. Mankind causing global warming is in question.

Well said. There is nothing wrong with conservation, regardless of global warming. People should recycle and conserve just to do it, they shouldn't be fear mongered into lies stating we are all going to melt because we don't do it.

HA! Too funny.

i don't think we're necessarily wholly responsible (in fact i'd argue that good scientific evidence supports the assertion that we aren't). but if we exacerbate the problem, or break the "natural occuring cycle" then we're still doing harm.

I think you might do more harm continuing to use it than smashing it. :)

"Man versus Nature: The Road to Victory!"

I get this vision of you wearing Mork's clothes, setting the eggs free.

Nanu-nanu.

MORK!

you do realize "global warming science" and green technology are huge industries right? and the polar caps arnt melting despite the propoganda

this.

Are there scientists exagerating things to make sure their funds don´t get cut (and they end up out of work) ? Absolutely. Are there scientists that are simply ethically dubious or want to make profit ? Of course.
Those are people afterall.

But that doesn´t change that this is a problem.

Who keeps the metric system down?
We do, we do.
Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do, we do.
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do, we do.
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do, we do!

Nah, just ruling those too fucking stupid to figure out that there's a lot of scam artists in the group, all desperately looking for their fifteen minutes.

The global warming/green movement is a massive industry and many people will try and protect it to make sure it stays that way. I think educating people on water use schedules, recycling and power reduction activities is a good thing. But, I think where the movement loses me is when it transitions into big business with things like carbon credits, huge focuses on CAFE standards and scare tactics about human beings causing the destruction of the world through fairly minimal (if even measurable) activities.

you lost me here. there is clear proof that they are.

just to spite you i hope Gaia or the space-probe from Star Trek: The Motion Picture or the aliens from "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake in 2008 reduce us back to stone-age technologies and wipe 90% of our population off the face of the earth.

Anybody who says global warming is fact is bullshitting you.

Anybody who says global warming is bullshit is bullshitting you.

Not according to the data. Back in 2006, we were on a 4-5 year steep downward trend. Then, in late 2007, it picked up again and we've been on a fairly massive upward trend for two-plus years. The South Pole is setting records (in 2008 and 2009) for maximum sea ice extent:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.south.jpg

Also, another beacon of worry is the Greenland Ice sheet accelerating, but it is slowing down:

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_...ains_Away.html

In fact, we could use some global warming right now as the increase in polar ice could have its own negative consequences.

As we sit on a rock together and lament the damage we've done (or the aliens have done), I will gladly admit I was wrong and you were right. :D

Yeah.

If you're gonna and say that because Scientist X is sexing up his data, it must all be bullshit, then you've got to be logically consistent and say that because Preacher Y gets caught doing something inconsistent with his proclaimed religious beliefs, the religion in question must be bullshit, too.

Can't have it both ways and say that one thing is true despite the actions of some of its adherents but the other is bullshit because of the actions of some of ITS adherents.

Careful. Methane is a greenhouse gas.

I had no idea the University of East Anglia was the number one source of all global warming data!

I've had enough with your junk-science!

:D

it probably has more to do with some dispute they are having with a competing local university because of personal dislike of other scientists than anything else i'd bet

Nothing good comes out of UEA. Stupid Pie-rats.

Is that their mascot?

Personally, I'd like to know the truth.

Somewhere between Dr. Emmett Brown's flying DeLorean and Al Gore science started mixing with politics and religion.

No good can come from that approach. Now Democrats have Faith in Global Warming and Republicans have Faith that it doesn't exist.

And scientists understand in that scenario that if they want grant money, they had better appease the pro-warming crowd right now.

I think Copernicus would question your timeline.

There's also the part where they are stacking the peer review boards for their papers. That's actually the more damning part in all this as it undermines trust in any science you read.

This is not what the article says as far as I can tell. What the article says is that, in these people's opinion, Climate Research was doing this to allow some anti-GW research to get the peer review stamp. CR also had to issue a retraction on some of the conclusions stated in that research (http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf). In return, one of these scientists said it might be best to stop treating it as a peer-reviewed journal.

Edit: And this is probably a good reason why a thread like this should start with a news article rather than an opinion piece that reads like the author is experiencing multiple orgasms while writing it.

I tend to agree with how Ars Technica has weighed in on the situation.

UK hack reveals climate science's ugly side, little more

This was the most frustrating part in my mind back when I cared about this topic. An increase of a couple degrees would actually probably be beneficial overall, opening up vast tracts of land, primarily in Canada and Siberia, while a decrease of a couple would do more harm, and has a greater risk of disaster (another ice age). Anthropogenic Global Warming proponents and Environmentalists in general seem to have the idea that the data set at the beginning of whichever timeline was the ideal one and we should be doing our utmost to ensure the status quo remains. When in fact the climate and the environment have constantly been changing over time. Europe was warmer in the 1400's than it is today, and most scientists agree there was a mini-ice age in the 1800's - so it shouldn't be surprising, or a bad thing, that it is getting warmer. Also, every time they predict something they've been off - usually because they underestimate the effect of natural phenomenae (solar flares, ocean CO2 absorption, etc), so I don't see why we should be shackling our machines of progress instead of taking part of the money we would be sacrificing to build better levees in Rio/New Orleans/Dhaka/etc or improve the standard of living of the poorest people that will supposedly be in the most danger of starvation from climate change.

Plus I'd rather be spending that money exploring space or the ocean. :)

From an overall view this might be correct, but the devil is in the details. Depending on the rapidity of change, such change could spark a tremendous amount of conflict among nations over changing resources.

If (and I recognize it's a big "if") climate change is significantly impacted by human activity, the concern isn't as much that some change may occur as it is that whatever change is happening may happen more rapidly than we can easily adapt to and that the change may continue without settling into a new status quo.

Again, it really depends on how much of the change that is happening is truly due to human activity. If it's primarily natural causes, we'd be better off spending money learning how to adapt rather than trying to prevent the change. But if it's primarily human-caused, I think it's our duty to change our behavior.

What frustrates me the most about this debate is that I'm not sure we've ever been treated to a true debate on the issue. I'd love to see an honest, open discussion about the issue with people on all sides of the issue addressing concerns. I'm reasonably sure the Earth is warming, but I'm less certain on the causes. I'd love to see true debate on things like carbon emissions and how human activity compares to natural activity, and whether human activity is significant enough to tip things; I'd love to see true debate on exactly what's happening with glacial melt - are the ice caps actually retreating or not when you look at yearly cycles? I'd love to see debate about the supposed correlation between sunspot activity and climate changes, and whether that's a better explanation than human activity as a driver of climate change; etc.

Like so many important issues, this one seems to be so polarized that real, honest and open debate is no longer possible; true believers aren't willing to tolerate hearing any dissent, and non-believers have closed their minds to the possibility they are wrong. We in the middle are left with many doubts and little trust in either side to speak truth.

But I thought religion was the cause of all conflict.

It is a source of much conflict, but certainly not all. Anyone that suggests otherwise is an idiot or an extreme ideologue ignoring reality.

There aren't a lot of people shooting eachother over global warming though.

Not entirely true. If/as the climate changes, the effects on access to resources will result in more conflict between nations.

There is if anyone steps on my land in Anaheim! I bought this anticipating to one day be beach front, dern it!