Any data that proves that the climate changes are man made?? What caused the natural changes before?

 

Cavemen caused the climate changes before with the lead based paint they painted their caves with. It is always mans' fault. Aren't you paying attention?

 

:sssh:

What relevance do you think it gives to the story of the manipulation and cover up of data? It seems to me big scandals often come to light via stolen or hacked data.

 

 

:lol: True. :lol: I do love how one can preach "truth" and "ethics" but be OK with another set of wrongs.

:lol: True. :lol: I do love how one can preach "truth" and "ethics" but be OK with another set of wrongs.

 

I agree that the whistle blowers in this case may have done some illegal/unethical activity in obtaining the information and they should be punished under the law. However in my opinion had the information not come to light, the climatologists would still be lying, just not getting caught. To me, that is more unethical than hacking the emails to get the proof.

 

To draw a parallel would be the Clinton/Lewinsky saga. In my opinion, Clinton would still be denying, denying, denying that anything ever took place if there had not been a stained navy blue dress. Much like these climatologists would be denying that they manipulated any data had these emails not come to light.

I agree that the whistle blowers in this case may have done some illegal/unethical activity in obtaining the information and they should be punished under the law. However in my opinion had the information not come to light, the climatologists would still be lying, just not getting caught. To me, that is more unethical than hacking the emails to get the proof.

 

To draw a parallel would be the Clinton/Lewinsky saga. In my opinion, Clinton would still be denying, denying, denying that anything ever took place if there had not been a stained navy blue dress. Much like these climatologists would be denying that they manipulated any data had these emails not come to light.

 

 

To me, there's a difference (not much, but distinct) between taking documents that are printed, or filed, and hacking into someone's computer and/or e-mail account.

To me, there's a difference (not much, but distinct) between taking documents that are printed, or filed, and hacking into someone's computer and/or e-mail account.

 

There is a difference and both are prosecutorial. However, in this case I think the ends justified the means. Both should be punished with the climatologists getting the larger end of the stick because fraud in my opinion is worse than theft/hacking information.

 

To draw another parallel, had someone hacked Madoffs email and found out that he was defrauding millions of investors out of billions of dollars they would have been wrong to do so. However their indiscretion would be far less grevious than the perpetrator of the fraud.

So, it occurs to me.....

 

People are outraged that there's apparently been data that's been manipulated regarding Climate Warming..............

 

But no one's concerned that this info has been hacked and stolen? :ohbrother:

Thieves among thieves? Serves them right.

I'm sorry, but considering many of the post here cite that the info was hacked and stolen, I find it very relevant to the topic.

 

This was info that was to be released by Great Britain's Freedom of Information Act, but was hidden and the e-mails were dumped. I'll bet that the individual who did this is willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. On the other hand, do you have problems with the truth being known?

This was info that was to be released by Great Britain's Freedom of Information Act, but was hidden and the e-mails were dumped. I'll bet that the individual who did this is willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. On the other hand, do you have problems with the truth being known?

 

If true, does this change anyone's mind about how they got the information? Again I ask, does this have relevance to the story?

:lol: True. :lol: I do love how one can preach "truth" and "ethics" but be OK with another set of wrongs.

 

Maybe I missed your post but I don't see where you've condemned the scientists for their fraud.

Maybe I missed your post but I don't see where you've condemned the scientists for their fraud.

 

 

Since I haven't had an opportunity to really look into this, I can't comment yet. But, hacking into computers and e-mails is pretty obvious.

 

I'm just pointing out that what people perceive as "wrong" seems to be skewed depending upon what truth they're seeking.

Truth and ultimately freedom is at stake. These envirnomentalists want to contol our lives by having our Congress passing laws that will restrict our choices and take money out of our pockets. Some feel laws were violated to make these e-mails public, but they were unlawfully hidden by these enviromentalists.. Let us remember that some of the greatest historical figures broke laws for the truth to be known and justice served. Our Founding Fathers, Ghandi, King and anyone throughout history that fought the evils of tyranny at the expense of their own freedom and lives.

 

As far as individual efforts to help the environment, I am all for it. But remember freedom is about choices. There are some who may choose to just dump 'stuff', but most do what is right. We have laws that have made the environment better, but this Cap and Trade movement is a phony, freedom and money stealing effort. While not changing the environment as all of this is a natural occurence.

Edited December 2, 200916 yr by bballfamily
spelling

Since I haven't had an opportunity to really look into this, I can't comment yet. But, hacking into computers and e-mails is pretty obvious.

 

I'm just pointing out that what people perceive as "wrong" seems to be skewed depending upon what truth they're seeking.

 

Hacking into email accounts is certainly wrong. But so is manipulating scientific research to further a political ideology. Which do you believe to be the more agregious act?

Since I haven't had an opportunity to really look into this, I can't comment yet. But, hacking into computers and e-mails is pretty obvious.

 

I'm just pointing out that what people perceive as "wrong" seems to be skewed depending upon what truth they're seeking.

 

There are 'Ethical Hackers' and even services from reputable top name companies that do this. Those that did this may believe themselves to be 'Ethical Hackers'. When they are caught (think Sarah Palin's email account) they are given a slight slap on the wrist.

 

But also, privacy and emails are a contridiction in terms. Emails are like postcards unless you take specific steps to protect them via public-private key. Most people do not. If you do not a public-private key set up then every email your send is in the open and the text and contents are available to be read on numerous ISP and Network providers servers. Hence why you should never send sensitive information via standard email.

 

http://email.about.com/cs/pgp/a/public_key_enc.htm

 

So far, this is looking like massive fraud and the dominos are starting to fall:

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102737_pf.html

I think we can all agree that we're not scientists and we don't speak scientists language so trying to interpret what they say can be a mistake.

 

This seems to be the quote that has most people convinced of "trickery."

 

"I have just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years to hide the decline."

 

The key words that prove such trickery would be , of course, "decline" and "trick."

 

 

Here's the explanation:

 

Mann said his trick, or ''trick of the trade,'' for the Nature chart was to combine data from tree-ring measurements, which record world temperatures from 1,000 years ago until 1960, with actual temperature readings for 1961 through 1998.

 

He combined the two kinds of measurements, he said, because scientists have discovered that, for temperatures since 1960, tree rings have not been a reliable indicator. Recent pollution and other factors have distorted tree-ring widths and density, he said.

 

''The decline'' in Jones' e-mail refers not to a decline in temperatures, but to a decline in the scientific usefulness of tree rings that have formed in the last five decades, Mann said, noting his chart clearly identified where all his data came from.

 

http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a1_5mann.7099473nov26,0,7714606.story

 

The only legit complaint that I can see is that regarding the request by someone to delete emails.

 

I said it earlier and I'll say it again. I highly doubt anyone on this site is smart enough to know what is factual and what is fluff in the pro- or anti-global warming argument. I think we've proven it in this thread.

I said it earlier and I'll say it again. I highly doubt anyone on this site is smart enough to know what is factual and what is fluff in the pro- or anti-global warming argument. I think we've proven it in this thread.

 

We may not be smart enough but a lot of research has go into this subject. And some of it flies directly in the face of what the message has been over the last decade.

 

Example:

 

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/ClimateChangeReconsidered.pdf

 

Some highlights of this 1000 page document:

 

Figure 3.1 on document page 64 (76 pdf page). 400,000 years of temprature data from an Russian ice core. If you know mathematics you will recognize an almost perfect periodic repeating function. The cycle looks like it is 90-100,000 years. It is not a random cycle and the peaks and valleys repeat and stay in the same range. Notice that high peaks are very sharp both up and down. And on average it is colder than it is now. It looks like we were due for the natural peak around now. If anything, we did not, or have not reduced that peak based on this chart. There may be more natural warming to come or the peak cycle was disrupted.

 

This chart is almost scary.

 

Figure 3.4.6 on document page 108 (120 pdf page). Models and actuals are very different. Read the paragraphes below the figure.

 

Figure 3.5.1 on document page 111 (123 pdf page). 1988 model and associated actual data. They dont match at all.

Edited December 2, 200916 yr by Bluegrasscard
sp