If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian) Interesting New batch of hacked climate scientist e-mails released on eve of climate summit. Thus, Al Gore is wrong and it will snow tomorrow   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 213
More: Interesting  
•       •       •

7697 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Nov 2011 at 10:43 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
abb3w [TotalFark]
2011-11-23 09:10:41 AM
Paging Jon Snow for yet another of these threads....
 
make me some tea [TotalFark]
2011-11-23 10:11:14 AM
OMG scientists disagreeing with each other?

This proves that it's a huge conspiracy!
 
TwoHead [TotalFark]
2011-11-23 10:39:46 AM
I wish they had warned me they were going to debunk climate change again. 10 inches of snow out there this morning and me without a good shovel.
 
iheartscotch
2011-11-23 10:49:07 AM
Its cold today; I could use with some global warming.

\ I keed, I keed
\\ runs away
 
rmoody
2011-11-23 10:49:31 AM
Ah, winter! Hot chocolate, Christmas, and retards who don't understand the difference between local weather and global climate.
 
tyrajam
2011-11-23 10:52:10 AM
One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed "background and context" which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations. Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:

FOLLOW...THE...MONEY!
 
bulldg4life
2011-11-23 10:52:16 AM
abb3w: Paging Jon Snow for yet another of these threads....

He can argue with weaver for the next 3 years
 
Farking Canuck
2011-11-23 10:54:35 AM
This is hilarious. They already released the email notes that they thought were the most damning before the 2009 summit and it turned out that they were a bust. Now they release the dregs that weren't worth releasing last time.

Talk about desperate. They fear the truth so they just try and muddy the waters. Anti-science at its worst.

/deniers are cowards
 
attention span of a retarded fruit fly
2011-11-23 10:55:10 AM
rmoody: Ah, winter! Hot chocolate, Christmas, and retards who don't understand the difference between local weather and global climate.

*gets popcorn...okey go ahead and explain it then
 
Fool_Marquis
2011-11-23 10:55:15 AM
Ah, Fark! Nutsack Squirrels, Waiding Looters, and retards who assume that globalized climate change will not cause a disruption or abnormality in local weather patterns.

/I keed, i keed.
 
F42
2011-11-23 10:57:01 AM
"Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches.

Oh, the hypocrisy.
 
Smoking GNU
2011-11-23 10:57:40 AM
Meh, won't make a difference either way. We have already borked this planets climate to the breaking point. Whatever is going to happen will happen. Even if the denailists clap their hands over their ears and go "lalalala" REALLY LOUDLY.

/prepares for inevitable apocalypse
 
Loki-L
2011-11-23 10:59:00 AM
What exactly is the current narrative by the deniers right now?

- climate change is not happening.
- climate is really getting hotter/colder while scientist claim it is getting colder/hotter
- climate is changing, but not as much as scientists say.
- climate is changing but it is a totally natural process and humans have no influence on it whatsoever.
- climate is changing and it might be partially human caused, but it is no big deal.
- climate is changing but it is too late to do anything about it.

I sort of lost track.

The climate skeptics at this point seem to bear an uncanny resemblance in their message to the anti-evolution crowd of which no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides the fact that Darwin was wrong.
 
imontheinternet
2011-11-23 11:01:32 AM
This story is conclusive proof that email is a conspiracy to make everyone look like idiots.
 
rmoody
2011-11-23 11:02:21 AM
To preempt the stupidity. (new window)

Find whatever stupid argument you were going to make against AGW in the list and save the rest of us your dumb post.
 
Jon Snow [TotalFark]
2011-11-23 11:04:13 AM
abb3w: Paging Jon Snow for yet another of these threads....

Meh.

All this crap does is reinforce existing belief systems that are threatened by the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

It has zero impact on the science. It has zero impact on policy makers, in terms of direct effects. It gives the Rush Limbaugh listeners something to cling to in the face of mountains of actual evidence.
 
MyRandomName
2011-11-23 11:06:10 AM
Loki-L: What exactly is the current narrative by the deniers right now?

- climate change is not happening.
- climate is really getting hotter/colder while scientist claim it is getting colder/hotter
- climate is changing, but not as much as scientists say.
- climate is changing but it is a totally natural process and humans have no influence on it whatsoever.
- climate is changing and it might be partially human caused, but it is no big deal.
- climate is changing but it is too late to do anything about it.

I sort of lost track.

The climate skeptics at this point seem to bear an uncanny resemblance in their message to the anti-evolution crowd of which no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides the fact that Darwin was wrong.

Basic climate science in terms of equations is sound. The totality of the interactions is not. Most importantly the modeling is still unreliable for future predictions. Models can vary from 1 degree to 7 degrees. It's still a young science in regards to atmospheric interactions.

One does not validate models with historic records, one does it through predictions. It's easy to adjust equations and interactions to match known graphs, it is the extrapolation that is difficult. I work in much less chaotic modeling of systems where I can control most of the external factors (aerodynamics and vehicle design) and we still have many errors on the first few flight tests.
 
odinsposse
2011-11-23 11:06:57 AM
Farking Canuck: This is hilarious. They already released the email notes that they thought were the most damning before the 2009 summit and it turned out that they were a bust. Now they release the dregs that weren't worth releasing last time.

Talk about desperate. They fear the truth so they just try and muddy the waters. Anti-science at its worst.

/deniers are cowards

The content doesn't matter. There are tons of people who still believe the last round of emails blew the lid off the climate change conspiracy. We will get another round of that now and probably hook a few more suckers. That's all climate denial is. The stubborn ignorance of people who can't or won't face reality.
 
TheManofPA
2011-11-23 11:07:36 AM
abb3w: Paging Jon Snow for yet another of these threads....

Winter is Coming?
 
MyRandomName
2011-11-23 11:07:47 AM
Jon Snow: abb3w: Paging Jon Snow for yet another of these threads....

Meh.

All this crap does is reinforce existing belief systems that are threatened by the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

It has zero impact on the science. It has zero impact on policy makers, in terms of direct effects. It gives the Rush Limbaugh listeners something to cling to in the face of mountains of actual evidence.

Zero impact on policy makers? I can link you to a few policy makers who would be influenced by the emails or the decisions made in regards to information based on the emails.
 
OBBN [TotalFark]
2011-11-23 11:07:57 AM
I really think you Global Warming people are amazing. Your side gets caught red handed making up information or altering it to support your position. When it is exposed I hear, "yeah, but were is all the snow". This is really big news and quite devastating to the movement. It might not change your mind, but it very well might change the mind of the people who are in the positions to fund your movement. If you make the people cutting the checks to keep your research alive feel betrayed and mislead it won't take long to reel the result.

As far as GW is concerned, I don't know? I really don't think that what is happening is nothing that we can control either way. The Earth changes climate over the years and that is what we are seeing. I think that some are seeing what they want to see, possibly on both sides. But as someone up thread said, "follow the money". 99 times out of a 100 if you want to know the truth, follow the money trail.
 
farkingatwork
2011-11-23 11:10:32 AM
tyrajam: One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed "background and context" which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations. Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:

FOLLOW...THE...MONEY!

wait, so you mean...people shouldn't be spending money to improve things that may enable our civilization to last more than another century or two before inevitable collapse?

I wouldn't think that these people are self-serving to promote their own "green" companies.
 
tomcatadam
2011-11-23 11:11:17 AM
Jon Snow: It has zero impact on policy makers

I'd disagree here.

If it gets picked up by the media, Joe Blow is not going to smartly interpret what it means. They are going to listen to what they're told it means, by their chain emails or by the ignorant newscasters, and in turn they're going to elect politicians based off of that 'knowledge'.

In this case, however, I agree nothing will amount because the story is "old and done".
 
neversubmit
2011-11-23 11:13:05 AM
TwoHead: I wish they had warned me they were going to debunk climate change again. 10 12 inches of snow out there this morning and me without a good shovel.

licky boom boom down

FIFM
 
archichris [TotalFark]
2011-11-23 11:15:48 AM
Loki-L: What exactly is the current narrative by the deniers right now?

- climate change is not happening.
- climate is really getting hotter/colder while scientist claim it is getting colder/hotter
- climate is changing, but not as much as scientists say.
- climate is changing but it is a totally natural process and humans have no influence on it whatsoever.
- climate is changing and it might be partially human caused, but it is no big deal.
- climate is changing but it is too late to do anything about it.

I sort of lost track.

The climate skeptics at this point seem to bear an uncanny resemblance in their message to the anti-evolution crowd of which no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides the fact that Darwin was wrong.

Dont you love the offended tone of the article? I wonder how the guardian felt about the Wiki-Leaks group.....

In any case, I cant speak for others, but my points of disagreement with climate alarm-ism are as follows:

-Warming is occurring, all the data points to it, I have no problem with that.
-groups are working very hard to link that warming to human use of fossil fuels
-that link will be used to channel money from more productive nations to less productive nations....but will most likely just wind up int he hands of activists and despots.
-no measurable improvement will ever be made but resources will become much more expensive
-the increased cost of food will result in massive suffering in the poorest nations of the world
-that there is little proof that another hundred years of warming would really be a disaster of hollywood proportions.
-that our most efficient means of improving world energy supplies and eventually reducing the dependence on fossil fuels is to use those fuels while we can to boost world productivity and thereby increase our economic ability to develop new sources of fuel.
-that the issue is being cynically manipulated by politicians worldwide to enrich and motivate their parties
-that solutions other than reducing emissions are largely ignored by alarmists.
-that the real intent of reducing emissions is to reduce the power of the western world economic engine
-that solyndra is a perfect example in microcosm of the philosophy of climate-mongering
 
olddinosaur
2011-11-23 11:15:55 AM
Nobody is going to dump out of this scam, no matter how much proof to the contrary is shown.

Too many people making money off it, and too much power at stake.
 
OBBN [TotalFark]
2011-11-23 11:16:45 AM
OBBN: I really think you Global Warming people are amazing. Your side gets caught red handed making up information or altering it to support your position. When it is exposed I hear, "yeah, but were is all the snow". This is really big news and quite devastating to the movement. It might not change your mind, but it very well might change the mind of the people who are in the positions to fund your movement. If you make the people cutting the checks to keep your research alive feel betrayed and mislead it won't take long to reel the result.

As far as GW is concerned, I don't know? I really don't think that what is happening is nothing that we can control either way. The Earth changes climate over the years and that is what we are seeing. I think that some are seeing what they want to see, possibly on both sides. But as someone up thread said, "follow the money". 99 times out of a 100 if you want to know the truth, follow the money trail.

Yeah, sorry about the mis-spellings. Sorta out of it this morning.
 
Kibbler
2011-11-23 11:17:13 AM
Cf. spluttering purple-faced rightwing rage when wikileaks releases hacked documents.
 
11of12
2011-11-23 11:18:31 AM
thedanashow.files.wordpress.com
This is super serial you guys!
 
misanthropologist
2011-11-23 11:18:37 AM
tyrajam: One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed "background and context" which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations. Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:

FOLLOW...THE...MONEY!

Seriously. So the hacker's (or their employers') argument is something along the lines of "people are poor, and sustainable development will keep them poor"? Yeah, that makes a whole metric tonne of sense...
 
tomcatadam
2011-11-23 11:19:02 AM
OBBN: making up information or altering it to support your position.

You are so dumb.
Or just trolling.

"Making up information".

The only changes made are due to known factors and influences that affect the final model; i.e. (as an extremely simplified example) if there was a heater placed near a sensor for a month that was absolutely known to raise the local temperature for the sensor by 5 degrees, then subtracting 5 from the sensor's output over the duration of the time that the heater was operating.
 
Cubicle Jockey
2011-11-23 11:20:10 AM
OBBN: . When it is exposed I hear, "yeah, but were is all the snow".


AGW can actually increase snowfall since the amount of moisture available to be precipitated in the air has increased. If the average temperature for January changes from 20 to 23, you are still going to get snow instead of rain. The dates of the first and last snow will shift, but the amount of snow overall will go up.

Anyone who would use the lack of local snowfall in the United States as evidence of AGW understands the science about as poorly as you do.
 
OBBN [TotalFark]
2011-11-23 11:22:11 AM
Loki-L: What exactly is the current narrative by the deniers right now?

- climate change is not happening.
- climate is really getting hotter/colder while scientist claim it is getting colder/hotter
- climate is changing, but not as much as scientists say.
- climate is changing but it is a totally natural process and humans have no influence on it whatsoever.
- climate is changing and it might be partially human caused, but it is no big deal.
- climate is changing but it is too late to do anything about it.

I sort of lost track.

The climate skeptics at this point seem to bear an uncanny resemblance in their message to the anti-evolution crowd of which no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides the fact that Darwin was wrong.

While you have some points, the same could be said of the GW crowd. I can remember as a kid in the '80s the problem wasn't Global Warming , it was man made Global Cooling, we were all going to die in a new ice age. It almost seems as if "no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides there is change going on".
 
tomcatadam
2011-11-23 11:23:11 AM
archichris: -groups are working very hard to link that warming to human use of fossil fuels

Groups are working very hard to determine where the warming in great and noticeable excess of natural climate cycles is resulting from; it just happens to point to human means much more often than not, for scientists and most organizations all over the world.
 
WinoRhino
2011-11-23 11:23:22 AM
Is it anywhere as bad as the Texas reports that were redacted and edited by Rick Perry's cronies to remove the scientific evidence of climate change? You know, the one where they got caught and their comment was "Well, it would be irresponsible of us to simply accept scientific evidence."
 
MrSteve007
2011-11-23 11:24:50 AM
FTA: "It prompted three official inquiries in the UK and two in the US into the working practices of climate scientists"

It's curious that the Guardian newspaper conveniently omits the fact that all the official inquiries found no wrongdoing whatsoever. Also nevermind that the enquires were conducted by separate people on different continents - it's a conspiracy!
 
bootman
2011-11-23 11:25:58 AM
Blah-blah-blah. The future of global warming is simply a question of future energy generation and storage. The future of energy generation is space based solar, which makes storage largely moot. Anyone who asserts otherwise is the functional equivalent of an aboriginal squatting in a ditch, shoving berries up their nose.

99.8432% of the mass of our solar system is already configured into a fusion reactor loaded with enough fuel to run non-stop for ~4 billion more years. The remaining 0.1368% of mass needs to be used for hookers,blow and energy collection, not energy generation.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
 
deadcrickets
2011-11-23 11:27:37 AM
OBBN: I really think you Global Warming people are amazing. Your side gets caught red handed making up information or altering it to support your position. When it is exposed I hear, "yeah, but were is all the snow". This is really big news and quite devastating to the movement. It might not change your mind, but it very well might change the mind of the people who are in the positions to fund your movement. If you make the people cutting the checks to keep your research alive feel betrayed and mislead it won't take long to reel the result.

As far as GW is concerned, I don't know? I really don't think that what is happening is nothing that we can control either way. The Earth changes climate over the years and that is what we are seeing. I think that some are seeing what they want to see, possibly on both sides. But as someone up thread said, "follow the money". 99 times out of a 100 if you want to know the truth, follow the money trail.

I'm not on either side however... even a total idiot would know that they were, indeed, vindicated and proven not to have altered the data. Not only that but one of the major skeptics recently funded a meta survey that proved it is happening. I'm sure you've heard of him... Koch... as in suck it?
 
EZ Writer
2011-11-23 11:28:58 AM
I'll just leave this here:

www.realclearsports.com
 
tomcatadam
2011-11-23 11:28:58 AM
OBBN: it was man made Global Cooling, we were all going to die in a new ice age

Horseshiat.

Or you fall to the problem outlined earlier, in that you did not critically think about it.
 
HotWingConspiracy
2011-11-23 11:29:52 AM
I still love the "scientists say climate change is happening to get grant money" line. It's so beyond absurd it's almost art.
 
rickycal78
2011-11-23 11:31:13 AM
OBBN: Loki-L: What exactly is the current narrative by the deniers right now?

- climate change is not happening.
- climate is really getting hotter/colder while scientist claim it is getting colder/hotter
- climate is changing, but not as much as scientists say.
- climate is changing but it is a totally natural process and humans have no influence on it whatsoever.
- climate is changing and it might be partially human caused, but it is no big deal.
- climate is changing but it is too late to do anything about it.

I sort of lost track.

The climate skeptics at this point seem to bear an uncanny resemblance in their message to the anti-evolution crowd of which no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides the fact that Darwin was wrong.

While you have some points, the same could be said of the GW crowd. I can remember as a kid in the '80s the problem wasn't Global Warming , it was man made Global Cooling, we were all going to die in a new ice age. It almost seems as if "no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides there is change going on".

I seem to remember the problem in the 80's was acid rain.
 
Cubicle Jockey
2011-11-23 11:31:58 AM
olddinosaur: Too many people making money off it, and too much power at stake.

The budget for NOAA for all of its various responsibilities, including climate change research, for all of FY2012 is less then $6 billion.

Exxon, a single company, had Q3 earnings of $10.3 billion from revenue of $125.3 billion. A single quarter from a single company.


Now read your own words again, and ask yourself which of the two above entities they should describe.
 
wxboy
2011-11-23 11:34:02 AM
misanthropologist: tyrajam: One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed "background and context" which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations. Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:

FOLLOW...THE...MONEY!

Seriously. So the hacker's (or their employers') argument is something along the lines of "people are poor, and sustainable development will keep them poor"? Yeah, that makes a whole metric tonne of sense...

I suppose a counter-argument could be along the lines of "doing nothing will make many of those poor people dead", mostly via drought and thus famine.

Then again, fewer people is actually one way to curb emissions. Except that those that are most at risk from the effects of climate change are the ones least responsible for causing it.
 
HotWingConspiracy
2011-11-23 11:34:13 AM
OBBN: I can remember as a kid in the '80s the problem wasn't Global Warming , it was man made Global Cooling,

No you can't, you're making shiat up.
 
HighZoolander [TotalFark]
2011-11-23 11:35:44 AM
OBBN: OBBN: I really think you Global Warming people are amazing. Your side gets caught red handed making up information or altering it to support your position. When it is exposed I hear, "yeah, but were is all the snow". This is really big news and quite devastating to the movement. It might not change your mind, but it very well might change the mind of the people who are in the positions to fund your movement. If you make the people cutting the checks to keep your research alive feel betrayed and mislead it won't take long to reel the result.

As far as GW is concerned, I don't know? I really don't think that what is happening is nothing that we can control either way. The Earth changes climate over the years and that is what we are seeing. I think that some are seeing what they want to see, possibly on both sides. But as someone up thread said, "follow the money". 99 times out of a 100 if you want to know the truth, follow the money trail.

Yeah, sorry about the mis-spellings. Sorta out of it this morning.

Spelling really wasn't your biggest problem there sparky.

/grammar, critical thinking, gullibility...
 
autopsybeverage
2011-11-23 11:36:24 AM
OBBN: I can remember as a kid in the '80s the problem wasn't Global Warming , it was man made Global Cooling, we were all going to die in a new ice age. It almost seems as if "no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides there is change going on".

This was a concern in the 1970s too. Technology has given us a leg-up in scientific research that wasn't available in the 1980s as well.

I would personally like to see some research that showing how massive deforestation has affected climate change, because that has been going on forever.
 
tomcatadam
2011-11-23 11:36:32 AM
HotWingConspiracy: No you can't, you're making shiat up.

There was a fair amount of sensationalization from terrible reporters.

Of course, it was unfounded and all major players involved retracted or redacted their own statements almost immediately.
 
HungryHungryHippo
2011-11-23 11:37:26 AM
rickycal78: OBBN: Loki-L: What exactly is the current narrative by the deniers right now?

- climate change is not happening.
- climate is really getting hotter/colder while scientist claim it is getting colder/hotter
- climate is changing, but not as much as scientists say.
- climate is changing but it is a totally natural process and humans have no influence on it whatsoever.
- climate is changing and it might be partially human caused, but it is no big deal.
- climate is changing but it is too late to do anything about it.

I sort of lost track.

The climate skeptics at this point seem to bear an uncanny resemblance in their message to the anti-evolution crowd of which no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides the fact that Darwin was wrong.

While you have some points, the same could be said of the GW crowd. I can remember as a kid in the '80s the problem wasn't Global Warming , it was man made Global Cooling, we were all going to die in a new ice age. It almost seems as if "no two groups or spokespeople can ever agree on anything besides there is change going on".

I seem to remember the problem in the 80's was acid rain.

I though so too...80's was acid rain, 70's was new ice age.
 
Colin O'Scopy
2011-11-23 11:37:51 AM
It continued: "As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported. They, the university and the wider research community have stood by the science throughout, and continue to do so."

That's all I need to know. Yawn. This is a Non-story once again.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
From the Fark Shop:
More from the Fark Shop »