View previous topic | View next topic

Global Warming is a Hoax

Page 1 of 12
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next


What do you think?
Global Warming is a hoax
8%
 8%  [ 5 ]
It's real, but is mostly natural
27%
 27%  [ 17 ]
It's real, and is mostly affected by man
56%
 56%  [ 35 ]
Ooh look, a brown dog outside my window...
8%
 8%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 62

CB27
639801.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:36 am Reply with quote

A wall of silence considering the amazing news in the last few days of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU for short from now on).

Outspoken critics have jumped on the news as proof that all the information given in the past is a pack of lies, but it seems most of the media have been more cautious in their approach considering the nature of how those emails were released, plus the facts that some of the more sensational bits jumped on by sceptics seem to be more in retaliation to misinformation from sceptics.

One of the biggest points in this is a mention of a trick to massage figures to hide a temperature decline. The problem with highlighting this is that it's actually a method that's been discussed in the past and was famously used for the "hockey stick" effect which has been debated by many people. The simple reason is that because of the spike in 1998, despite continuously warmer than average temperatures afterwards, the average looked like declining for some time - a trend that will be familiar to anyone trading markets.

Of course, the other noticable facts to these leaks, and perhaps why they're not widely covered, is because only some emails and documents have been released by the hackers, all handpicked, and the timing is very sensitive, so this all smacks of a very organised hack as opposed to an individual with an interest for open discussions.

More evident is the fact that none of these emails or documents mentions any conspiracies, or any links to investments, or that anyone actually thinks Global Warming is a hoax and is covering it up, no mentions of any Government or any other organisation directing them. Some of these emails are obviously very personal and not meant to be seen by anyone (especially those mocking someone's death), so it would be reasonable that if people were careless enough to write these emails they would be careless to mention any of those things that seem missing.

But then, I can't really say much as I'm part of the conspiracy...

 
Ion Zone
639813.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:44 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Outspoken critics have jumped on the news as proof that all the information given in the past is a pack of lies


It's funny what critics will consider dis/proof....from what I hear they are still trying to work out what got stolen, and how much of what has already been released was modified or added by the hackers, these problems are being compounded by the huge amount of data and the server being taken offline, from what it sounds, though, most of what they got was emails.

 
bobwilson
639867.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:58 am Reply with quote

What on Earth is this about?

 
Jenny
639869.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:00 pm Reply with quote

Read all about it here bob.

 
CB27
639882.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:25 pm Reply with quote

Interesting to see former MP Nigel Lawson demanding an enquiry into the contents of the emails as opposed to an enquiry over the hack itself.

Wonder if he had such disregard to law while in the Cabinet?

 
PDR
639888.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:32 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Interesting to see former MP Nigel Lawson demanding an enquiry into the contents of the emails as opposed to an enquiry over the hack itself.

Wonder if he had such disregard to law while in the Cabinet?


Oppositions mostly do though, don't they. When governments have tried to identify and prosecute sources of leaks they are seen as authoritarian (look at the recent arrest within the House of Commons for just this kind of thing). Governments want to hold "leak investigations" whereas oppositions want to embarrass the government with selected highlights from the leaks.

How many people have demanded the Daily Telegraph be prosecuted for publishing the private personal data of MPs, even though the publication is an offence, and the act of leaking it is an even greater offence (especially if done for profit, as seems likely)?

PDR

 
CB27
639894.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:50 pm Reply with quote

I feel like singing "I did..." :)

 
Mort
639959.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:02 pm Reply with quote

I'm particularly amused by
Quote:
One of the colleague referred to by Jones — Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University — did not immediately respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.

and
Quote:
Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails — Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — did not immediately return requests for comment.

Did not immediately respond? What do you expect? These people have stuff to do, responding to crackpot conspiracy journalists is probably not high on the to-do list.


(I'm not amused by this page's tendency to insert things into my clipboard when I copy and paste)

 
cornixt
640008.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:15 pm Reply with quote

I love the way they used a picture of one of the bog-standard accomodation blocks to show the university. Rather cool lighting in the photo.

There still isn't anything really substantial in the emails released so far, and if nothing else comes then it is likely there isn't anything. Looks like a targetted hack for that reason.

 
zomgmouse
640044.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:10 pm Reply with quote

Well obviously it's a hoax set up by Elvis to cover up his murders of Marilyn Monroe and JFK by means of a UFO.

 
bobwilson
640050.  Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:29 pm Reply with quote

Janet Daly wrote:
Daily TelegraphAccording to the UN climate agency, the level of greenhouse gases has hit record levels. And carbon dioxide levels are rising faster than in previous years. Furthermore, these levels have apparently risen every year since detailed records began in 1998. So why, why, why is it that there has been no global warming since that very year: why indeed is 1998 the year in which, it has been noted, the temperature of the earth began slightly but perceptibly to fall?

I am not a scientist. I have no meteorological expertise whatever. But I spent twenty years teaching philosophy and I know a logical contradiction when I see one. If greenhouse gases, and most particularly carbon dioxide, are the chief cause of global warming, then surely there should be a direct correlation between their rise (especially if it is one of record-breaking proportions) and a rise in the rate of warming. Can somebody please explain to me how an increase in these gases can exactly coincide with a fall in temperature? And while they are doing it, can they please refrain from cooking the figures (pun intended)?


Well, I hope she was teaching philosophy only at Kindergarten level if that's what she thinks is a logical contradiction. Somebody ought to tell her that carbon dioxide levels are not the only factor that affects weather and climate - but I guess she'd have trouble trying to get more than one concept into her head at the same time. /sigh

 
soup
640695.  Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:59 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:

Somebody ought to tell her that carbon dioxide levels are not the only factor that affects weather and climate -


Eh?
She didn't say it was she said
Quote:
If greenhouse gases, and most particularly carbon dioxide, are the chief cause of global warming, then surely there should be a direct correlation between their rise (especially if it is one of record-breaking proportions) and a rise in the rate of warming.

my emphasis.

I personally doubt the climate change is entirely man made but I do think it exists however using up all the fossil fuel and chucking all this pollution in the atmosphere is not a good idea

 
bobwilson
640697.  Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:05 pm Reply with quote

If central heating is the chief cause of warming my house then surely there should be a direct correlation between turning the thermostat up (especially to record levels) and a rise in the temperature in my house.

Can somebody please explain to me how raising the thermostat can coincide with a fall in temperature? And while you're at it would you mind shutting the door?

 
CB27
640706.  Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:31 pm Reply with quote

Global warming is an unfortunate name because it brings up an idea that there is a constant warming, but when you have a system as large as the global climate and so many variables, you need to take a few things into account as to why the "drop" in temperature.

1998 was the warmest recorded year (globally, if you look at sources for only certain regions there are bound to be some differences). If it's still in the record books as the warmest year ever then no matter how warm subsequent years were, the trend would still look like going down.

The next warmest years on record are: 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001 and then 1997. We're talking about records since 1850.

What this shows us is that all the years since 1998 have been warmer than average, much warmer than average for most of them, 1998 just happened to be a spike.

 
bobwilson
640709.  Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:36 pm Reply with quote

And even if the temperature was dropping there could well be another factor involved (cyclical changes in the Earth's orbit perhaps). So whilst the temperature was dropping NOW the trend could still be upwards but wouldn't necessarily be apparent until, say, 50 years from now when the counterbalancing trend had ended.

Or, as I said in my previous post, once you shut the door the true effect of the central heating will become apparent.

I stand by my previous comment that someone who used to teach philosophy should have been able to see the inherent absurdity of her comments.

 

Page 1 of 12
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group