Global Warming: Man-made or not?

That's why they have emails instructing others to delete older e-mails and saying that others have already deleted the same e-mail.

Why would they want to make sure e-mails get deleted unless they have soemthig to hide?

Originally posted by Eladar
That's why they have emails instructing others to delete older e-mails and saying that others have already deleted the same e-mail.

Why would they want to make sure e-mails get deleted unless they have soemthig to hide?

They have to be careful that the emails they delete actually are unimportant. I get over 100 emails a day advertising business services and privvy member enlargement treatments, all of which I'd like to delete as it clutters up my inbox, I have to make sure I don't inadvertently delete important emails, and so have to waste time managing a database which should have only important stuff in but which gets piles of junk as well. This means going through emails by hand which takes up hours of peoples working time.

The Freedom of Information Act is being used by climate skeptics to create a Denial of Service attack on the people researching climate change. By pressurizing the academic department's administrative systems they create a situation where they're likely to make a mistake and then crack the email server to show a list of moans from academics about all the emails they have to answer.

This is a dirty tricks campaign by a bunch of people who have lost the argument and know it. Really there is only a conspiracy in the minds of the people who presumably want global warming because they hope it will open up new markets for disaster relief equipment or whatever it is they think they can make money out of. The slight flaw in the skeptics' plan is they way the population - and hence the economy - will shrink in the face of an hostile environment.

They have to be careful that the emails they delete actually are unimportant.

You assume that this is the case in this event? No where in that e-mail does it say "It's OK to delete it because the info isn't important, the instruction was to delete it." That leads me to believe that there was something important in it, and something they didn't want to be made public.

What I think is most important about this is that the fact that we are not experiencing global warming is being brought up again. There is complete silence now that we are in a cooling cycle as opposed to a warming cycle.

The Climate Change folks shouldn't pick a side. They should be just as fervent about Global Cooling as they are about Global Warming, but this certainly is not the case.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why does armchair general get the nice ATY avatar, and we get squat? 😠

They don't make me pay for the image. Re: juicy comments - people aren't as patronizing here. They're mostly aggressive conservative military folks over there.

Anyway, they banned my ass. I called an administrator a brainwashed cultist...after I openly trolled another jerk. I didn't mean to troll the administrator, but he decided it was trolling. It was definitely insulting, but they guy was displaying classic cultist behavior known as the Thought-Terminating Cliche.

It certainly looks like the global warmists scientists are trying to cover their tracks. It looks like they've been caught with their pants down.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece


SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation

Thank god for hackers.

Originally posted by PP
Thank god for hackers.

Amen! 🙂

Just heard about this, but I can't find much at all on "Climategate" in the reputable local papers here in Toronto. Is The Sunday Times reputable? (I've never read it.) Is this a spin session, or are there any serious challenges to the theory of global climate change?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
They don't make me pay for the image. Re: juicy comments - people aren't as patronizing here. They're mostly aggressive conservative military folks over there.

Anyway, they banned my ass. I called an administrator a brainwashed cultist...after I openly trolled another jerk. I didn't mean to troll the administrator, but he decided it was trollin ...[text shortened]... ut they guy was displaying classic cultist behavior known as the Thought-Terminating Cliche.

For juicy ATY comments, see my 2012 Obama thread in Culture.

It seems to me these "scientist's" were caught massaging data to procure funds for their research from the political GW machine...plain and simple

deleting original data is the first thing one is taught NOT TO DO while experimenting.

How do these people get the title of scientist without understanding the importance of the scientific system.?.

Data faking the Hockey Stick theory was actually GW's fault.

Lefties are so predictable.

Originally posted by joe shmo
It seems to me these "scientist's" were caught massaging data to procure funds for their research from the political GW machine...plain and simple

deleting original data is the first thing one is taught NOT TO DO while experimenting.

How do these people get the title of scientist without understanding the importance of the scientific system.?.

They don't collect the data, they process it. Why would they need to keep an extra copy of the raw data?
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate tells you that 95% of the raw data has been available at the Global Historical Climatology Network for SEVERAL YEARS. The rest is being published when they have permission.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
They don't make me pay for the image. Re: juicy comments - people aren't as patronizing here. They're mostly aggressive conservative military folks over there.

Anyway, they banned my ass. I called an administrator a brainwashed cultist...after I openly trolled another jerk. I didn't mean to troll the administrator, but he decided it was trollin ...[text shortened]... ut they guy was displaying classic cultist behavior known as the Thought-Terminating Cliche.

that admin's got a good future minding the Global Warming and Obama pages at wikipedia.

Originally posted by mrstabby
They don't collect the data, they process it. Why would they need to keep an extra copy of the raw data?
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate tells you that 95% of the raw data has been available at the Global Historical Climatology Network for SEVERAL YEARS. The rest is being published when they have permission.

if the data was available, why did they need to refuse Freedom of Information requests to obtain it?

and why did they say it was deleted and not available?

and if some data is protected by permissions and unreleasable, why did they happily release it to persons they apparently didn't have disagreements with?

---

http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/01/sent-loads-of-station-data-to-scott/

“Sent loads of station data to Scott”
Jan 1, 2010 – 3:15 PM

“Community” climate scientists (e.g. Nature, Realclimate) have been quick to accept the idea that CRU was prevented from releasing station data because of confidentiality agreements with originating meteorological services.

Something that Nature and Realclimate didn’t discuss or even seem to notice – and the blind spot is symptomatic – is that Jones delivered “confidential” data to his friends. In a Climategate Letter in early 2005, Jones told Mann that he had just sent “loads of station data to Scott [Rutherford]“, Mann’s close associate.

I guess that it didn’t occur to Nature or to Gavin Schmidt that confidentiality agreements also apply to masters of the universe. If the data is as confidential as Nature and Realclimate say, then the distribution of confidential data to associates and other third parties in breach of the confidentiality agreements may warrant just as much attention as Jones’ effort to obstruct FOI requests.
Read More »