Hackers Expose Global Warming Fraud

[UNTflyer]

Hundreds of scientists have independently found similiar trends without tricks or deleted data. It's just not that big of a deal.

Remember, these scientists want funding. It's like taking your car to a mechanic - he'll find something wrong with it. With the opportunity to grab up billions of dollars in funding, you're certain all of these scientists are playing it straight?

Oh, and "what we know about global warming" is exactly jack squat. They can't even gather accurate current temperature data with the most advanced measuring equipment, let alone tell us what the average temperature was 100, 1000, or 10,000 years ago.

[EagleGreen]

Remember, these scientists want funding. It's like taking your car to a mechanic - he'll find something wrong with it. With the opportunity to grab up billions of dollars in funding, you're certain all of these scientists are playing it straight?

Oh, and "what we know about global warming" is exactly jack squat. They can't even gather accurate current temperature data with the most advanced measuring equipment, let alone tell us what the average temperature was 100, 1000, or 10,000 years ago.

Yes, I'm a scientist, I realize "they" need funding, but most will not fabricate for funding. Those that do, a rotten few, always get exposed. Either by the peer-review process or by hackers .

We actually know quite a bit about global warming. We gather very accurate temperatures and have for some time. Temperature is one of the most studied environmental properties. Now, to determine if humans contributed to or are contributing to the recent increase in the rate of temperature increase is another story. Very hard to determine. BTW, maybe you should get a new mechanic.

[UNTflyer]

We gather very accurate temperatures and have for some time.

No, we don't.

================

"We can't know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the data," said Anthony Watts, veteran broadcast meteorologist, who for three years organized an extensive review of official ground temperature monitoring stations, in conjunction with Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and professor emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute, inspected 860 of the 1,221 U.S. ground stations that gauge temperature changes. The findings, previously reported in this column, were alarming.

They found 89 percent of stations "fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements" that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat," Watts reported.

[KRAM1]

Horror of all horrors...AL Gore cancelled his speech after the exposed emails...glad to see some conservatives in hollywood are even calling for Gore to give back his Academy Award. Ha! Mr. Green Gas himself is now tacking a bit of "global warming" in the backside. Too funny!!!!!

[Green Gas]

Horror of all horrors...AL Gore cancelled his speech after the exposed emails...glad to see some conservatives in hollywood are even calling for Gore to give back his Academy Award. Ha! Mr. Green Gas himself is now tacking a bit of "global warming" in the backside. Too funny!!!!!

I resent being compared to/or with that blow hard Jackass Gore.

The earth is cooling boys break out the the ski jackets it has for the last 10 plus years, and the northern hemisphere for last several years. The fun part is there are now twice as many scientists saying this is global warming is a crock of shit, then believe in global warming, and yet we ignore them an just listen to media scientists who have been paid to prove global warming and have an agenda other then science,

Edited December 5, 2009 by Green Gas

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

Its fine that you want to believe that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist based on your research, beliefs, or whatever else. However, this argument against the greenhouse effect is very ineffective in arguing your beliefs (in MY opinion). Aren't solar cycle proponents in the same (if not bigger) boat because industry stands to lose (loose?) alot more money if the greenhouse effect is eventually proven true?

I'm not saying that shady things haven't happened in the greenhouse proponent camp. With such a large supporting scientific population, I wouldn't be surprised there are some bad apples. Just keep in mind that there is plenty of opportunity and motive for it to happen (if its not already happened) in the other camps.

Let's say for the sake of argument that they are correct (which I firmly believe that they are not). It has been said that we contribute 1-2% of the controllable pollution in the world and that it would matter little if we could clean up our corner of the world the earth would still be polluted. Why should we spend trillions when the net effect of our changes would be negligible?

If there is to be global warming there will be global warming. We can't eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere nor would we want to since that would kill off plants. Climate is not isolated to this country and unless there is a worldwide plan which includes China, Russia, India and the other polluters then what we do will matter only slightly.

Yes, we need to be stewards of our environment but throwing trillions after a hoax will accomplish nothing except for those perpetuating this silliness.

[UNTflyer]

Not to mention... even IF the world is warming, and even IF it is being caused by humans, and even IF we could do something about it....

How can we say for certain a planet that is 1-2 degrees warmer is a bad thing??? How are we be so arrogant to believe that the current climate is the ideal?

[EagleGreen]

No, we don't.

================

"We can't know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the data," said Anthony Watts, veteran broadcast meteorologist, who for three years organized an extensive review of official ground temperature monitoring stations, in conjunction with Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and professor emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

The study, recently published by the free-market Heartland Institute, inspected 860 of the 1,221 U.S. ground stations that gauge temperature changes. The findings, previously reported in this column, were alarming.

They found 89 percent of stations "fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements" that say stations must be located at least 100 feet from artificial heat sources.

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat," Watts reported.

On the contrary, the ground stations are mostly for local and regional temperature changes and contribute little information to the climate change models. Things like Argo (measuring oceanic temps), satelite observations, and remote sensing contribute the majority of data. By the way, while you are concerned about bad scientists, you could suspect Roger Pielke Sr. may be corrupted (not saying he is). His grants aren't from normal funding sources, mainly private donations from the anti-climate change front. Not sure how valid his opinion is or why he hasn't presented any of the faulty sensor data in peer-reviewed journals. He mainly uses Watts as his pen man. Again, I'm not saying he is wrong about any of the ground sensors. I think the sensors are accurate (to comment on your ability of scientists to measure temperature accurately); however, they may be placed in ineffective areas; not sure.

[EagleGreen]

Not to mention... even IF the world is warming, and even IF it is being caused by humans, and even IF we could do something about it....

How can we say for certain a planet that is 1-2 degrees warmer is a bad thing??? How are we be so arrogant to believe that the current climate is the ideal?

Higher temperatures have been shown to increase heart disease, hypertension, cause low-birth weights, denature enzymes critical to metabolic function, etc. Even slight, chronic temperture increases cause these things to happen. Wild animals are particularly sensitive to chronic increased temperatures; especially those that are bound by fragmented habitats and cannot migrate as needed with increased temperatures. It is energetically costly and biologically critical in some instances. The year 2050 is predicted to be 5 degrees celcius warmer in Texas than the year 1960. These temperature changes are predicted to cause increased drought in our area. So while we don't know if it will happen or if it will be bad, it will certainly be different and all indications are that it will not be so great for many. Obviously, this is a prediction thing. We only have models to go by.

[FirefightnRick]

Higher temperatures have been shown to increase heart disease, hypertension, cause low-birth weights, denature enzymes critical to metabolic function, etc. Even slight, chronic temperture increases cause these things to happen. Wild animals are particularly sensitive to chronic increased temperatures; especially those that are bound by fragmented habitats and cannot migrate as needed with increased temperatures. It is energetically costly and biologically critical in some instances. The year 2050 is predicted to be 5 degrees celcius warmer in Texas than the year 1960. These temperature changes are predicted to cause increased drought in our area. So while we don't know if it will happen or if it will be bad, it will certainly be different and all indications are that it will not be so great for many. Obviously, this is a prediction thing. We only have models to go by.

Yeah right, a 1 to 2 degree change in global temperature ranks right up there with smoking, over eating, lack of excorcise and family history in the causes of heart disease?

He's not the Surgeon General, but he did stay in a Holiday Inn.........

Rick

[UNTflyer]

The year 2050 is predicted to be 5 degrees celcius warmer in Texas than the year 1960.

They can't even predict the weekend weather with any degree of accuracy.

And they said in the 70s that we were heading into another Ice Age.

[KingDL1]

ALARMIST'S WARMING PREDICTIONS WRONG, AGAIN

As most readers understand, the earth has not warmed statistically since 1998 and, in truth, began cooling in 2001. It cooled dramatically in 2007 and early 2008, but warmed slightly early in 2009 and then cooled again during the summer. This variability illustrates the difficult nature of climate forecasting.

EagleGreen - The heath concerns really?, that has to be the biggest joke ever, when every article I have have ever read says in the USA there tends to be better health in the south then in the North, and that will account for more then a 2 degrees of difference.

Also every Sat reading I have read shows the world temp has not increased since 1998, and even Northern hemisphere has cooled now. Also we are told of retreating ice in Antarctica but the Satellites have show an increase in ice over the last 30-40 years with record breaking years in the last several years. That was straight from NASA and the UN.

[HoustonEagle]

On the contrary, the ground stations are mostly for local and regional temperature changes and contribute little information to the climate change models. Things like Argo (measuring oceanic temps), satelite observations, and remote sensing contribute the majority of data. By the way, while you are concerned about bad scientists, you could suspect Roger Pielke Sr. may be corrupted (not saying he is). His grants aren't from normal funding sources, mainly private donations from the anti-climate change front. Not sure how valid his opinion is or why he hasn't presented any of the faulty sensor data in peer-reviewed journals. He mainly uses Watts as his pen man. Again, I'm not saying he is wrong about any of the ground sensors. I think the sensors are accurate (to comment on your ability of scientists to measure temperature accurately); however, they may be placed in ineffective areas; not sure.

EagleGreen slowly walk away from your keyboard. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Glenn Beck and the Heritage Foundation have spoken. Global Warming is a hoax and requires no further study. And how dare you bring up the peer-review process. We all know that scientist are one step lower than the local crack dealer. I once paid a scientist 50 bucks and he told me the moon was made out of cheese. His peers told me for a 100 bucks they could tell me what kind. You should be ashamed of your occupation sir!

Now if you will excuse me I have a meeting with the mayor to discuss privatizing the Fire Department.

[UNTflyer]

EagleGreen slowly walk away from your keyboard. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Glenn Beck and the Heritage Foundation have spoken. Global Warming is a hoax and requires no further study.

Actually, it's the Solar Cycle Deniers that claim "consensus" and that "the debate is over". No reputable scientist would declare that no further study is needed, yet that's what the Global Warming Hysterics tell us.

[EagleGreen]

EagleGreen slowly walk away from your keyboard. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, Glenn Beck and the Heritage Foundation have spoken. Global Warming is a hoax and requires no further study. And how dare you bring up the peer-review process. We all know that scientist are one step lower than the local crack dealer. I once paid a scientist 50 bucks and he told me the moon was made out of cheese. His peers told me for a 100 bucks they could tell me what kind. You should be ashamed of your occupation sir!

Now if you will excuse me I have a meeting with the mayor to discuss privatizing the Fire Department.

That's good stuff right there.

[UNT90]

Yes, I'm a scientist, I realize "they" need funding, but most will not fabricate for funding. Those that do, a rotten few, always get exposed. Either by the peer-review process or by hackers .

We actually know quite a bit about global warming. We gather very accurate temperatures and have for some time. Temperature is one of the most studied environmental properties. Now, to determine if humans contributed to or are contributing to the recent increase in the rate of temperature increase is another story. Very hard to determine. BTW, maybe you should get a new mechanic.

The peer review process that, in the emails, these "scientist" attempt to fix by allowing no one with any dissenting opinion on said board?

Excuse me if I trust the hacker more.

Interesting that you refer to them as criminals. It's not that they are not criminals, but if these scientist had complied with the FOI request, the hackers wouldn't have been needed.

Very interesting that you want to punish the hackers for exposing information that should have been public anyway. Agenda? Disagree with us or expose us for faulty science and we will brand you as a criminal. And, if we can say you beat your wife and dog, make you out to be a bigot, and call you a eco-terrorist, well, you deserve it, because you aren't with us!!

Not saying this is how you feel, but it is how many in the "green movement" feel, and is the first page out of the current liberal play book.

Edited December 7, 2009 by UNT90

[forevereagle]

The pear review process that, in the emails, these "scientist" attempt to fix by allowing no one with any dissenting opinion on said board?

I go to fruit for my global warming info as well.

[Cerebus]

Since we are bringing up health. Let's lay aside there are many scientist who doubt the amount of mans impact on climate change. Lets talk about the fact the leading causes of death in the third world are preventable. People drink contaminated food or water, they get an infection that could be treatable with antibiotics, they die of a disease which has a (by western standards) a cheap and readily available inoculation or treatment, they suffer an accident which would be easily survivable with proper medical care.

So why do they have to die? Mainly because of their society's poverty and lack of infrastructure. The MAJORITY of the earths population has a negligible "carbon footprint" and the only way they can improve their lot in life is by drastically increasing thier societies carbon footprint. This is why China, India, the countries of Africa and Central/South America will never agree to significant carbon restrictions, to do so would be to condemn millions, if not billions to early deaths.

People need to understand that for most of the planet, carbon restrictions wouldn't mean they would have to get a smaller SUV, it would mean the inability to drastically improve their life. It means early death. It means their children will be in similar situations.

So if we are never going to be able to reduce carbon emissions (China increases its carbon output every year by more than most of the EU's total), why handicap our industry, and impose incredible taxes on Americans?

And, there are probably good, cheap ways, to counteract to any temperature rises, check out SuperFreakanomics for what I mean.

[UNT90]

I go to fruit for my global warming info as well.

Fixed.

I hadn't eaten yet, must have been on my mind.

[Rudy]

Higher temperatures have been shown to increase heart disease, hypertension, cause low-birth weights, denature enzymes critical to metabolic function, etc.

a 5-31 record has been known to cause these things too.

That's good stuff right there.

Crown Royal is better stuff

[UNT90]

It's not that big of a deal is why it's not reported. A few scientists, a bunch of e-mails, exposed by criminals (hackers). Hacking occurs all the time (no news). People write e-mails all the time (no news). A few scientists may be corrupted; we'll find out after the investigation is over (Decent news, but not worth talking about after the initial report).

Bet you didn't see this on your 5:30 national news:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/sexandmetro/2009/...climate-change/

And it is VERY news worthy.

This is what really bothers me:

"In one e-mail, as a response to an email indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Michael Mann wrote “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.” Michael Mann said to the Wall Street Journal that he didn’t feel there was anything wrong in saying “we shouldn’t be publishing in a journal that’s activist.”

So, if you publish a scientific paper that doesn't agree with us, you are an activist?!?! You don't even have to be the researcher of the paper, publishing it is enough for the label. Ya, sounds like he is really open to a dissenting opinion.

If you don't agree, we label you. Simply as that.

Edited December 7, 2009 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

I like Oklahoma's Jim Inhoffe's remark.

Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, an outspoken skeptic of human-caused global warming said “Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in.”

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

Just funny!

Rick

[UNT90]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Just funny!

Rick

Don't you understand? They are so wise and important that they deserve these perks. They are doing their part by pointing out how you are screwing up the world, therefore their own rules don't apply to themselves.

Just stay in your place, do what your told, and don't question anything they do.

Reminds me of the news piece I saw on Fox where Gore was imside giving a speach on the horrors of carbon emissions, meanwhile 5 limos sat outside idling while waiting for Gore. They had been instructed to keep the cars runnings. Really no difference between Gore and Bernie Maydoff (Sp?). I guess Bernie took the money directly from people, while Gore will do it through Cap and Trade.

[FirefightnRick]

I nearly fell over this morning when I saw the Obama Network on NBC report on the Cophenhagan Summit and actually mentioned EmailGate. Of course, they gave the typical excuses being spread around by the left meant to diminish it all, but still surprising it was discussed.

Rick