Sensitive Documents Lifted from Hadley Climate Center

[KRonn]

Nope, I said some of the groups and spokespersons. As I said, we all want cleaner greener, but most of us aren't so wrapped up or fanatical and are more even tempered in dealing with the issue. 

While there are certainly some fanatics out there, they exist on both sides of the issue, of course. So why not simply ignore them? They don't really matter.

What strikes me as "fanatic" though is the attempt to paint the "other guy" as a whole as some kind of extremist, and makes me think the person doing so is in the "fanatic" camp themselves, since they clearly are not interested in actual discussion - after all, you cannot have a reasonable discussion with religious fanatics, can you?

I honestly feel that we've been pushing the whole debate of how we're destroying the planet too far, and pursuing policies based on that too far.

How so? Who is "we"?

How does casting those who don't agree with you as religious fanatics helping your argument that we should do less about global climate change?

Again, I didn't say everyone was a fanatic! Do you even see what I've posted? The UK courts have allowed climate change to be classified a religion, as I said before. That's a bit concerning to me. Do I need to say things over, to respond to your same posts, said differently?

I don't even have a strong view either way, and what I've said is pretty moderate. So I don't understand what the fuss even is.

[KRonn]

If this hacking and what these climatologists have said is all blown out of proportion, we'll know soon enough one way or another, whether our esteemed Congress does look into it all or not.

[Berkut]

I don't even have a strong view either way, and what I've said is pretty moderate. So I don't understand what the fuss even is.

Agreed, and that's why I've become very wary and suspect at the extreme views on climate change, greening, all the whole movement. We all want greener, cleaner, but some of the groups pushing things seem to have it as their ideology, way of life, hatred of the way things are now, want everyone to radically change. And follow the money trail - some groups or industries stand to make a lot of money on the climate change industry.

Calling the "whole movement" "extreme", casting the science as "ideology", "hater of the way things are now", claiming that there is a general motivation of "money" behind it - these are not "moderate" views in the least.

Trying to wrap yourself in the cloak of "moderacy" while you make comments that are rather nutbar is not very honest. A "moderate" view does not include attempting to claim that GW is in general motivated by some nefarious cabal trying to make money, push their ideology, and destroy your way of life.

[Admiral Yi]

 :lol:Enjoy KRonn.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't see how anyone can take climate science seriously anymore now that we know that some guy from East Anglia called someone else a "prat".  Clearly this critical piece of information demolishes decades of research done by hundreds of scientists across the globe.

[derspiess]

I guess it is funny sometimes to see how some people react to their religious views being questioned

Pot.Kettle.Black.

Berkut.Missed.ThePoint.

[Razgovory]

What is the point?

[Berkut]

What is the point?

That people who listen to science rather than Rush are too religious, I think.

[Razgovory]

What is the point?

That people who listen to science rather than Rush are too religious, I think.

I honestly don't know what the fuck any of you are talking about.

[Ed Anger]

What is the point?

That people who listen to science rather than Rush are too religious, I think.

I honestly don't know what the fuck any of you are talking about.

This is why I continue to use Toilet Paper.

[Razgovory]

I'm glad my ignorance is keeping your ass clean.

[Ed Anger]

I'm glad my ignorance is keeping your ass clean.

Global warming one of the issues I have formulated no real opinion about. Like abortion, jesus and the continued existence of Ashton Kutcher.

[Jaron]

No one is safe from Berkut it seems.

[Jacob]

In case anyone is interested:

One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a "trick" of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word "trick" was not intended to imply any deception.

Phil Jones comments further: "One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the 'decline' or 'divergence'. The use of the term 'hiding the decline' was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement."

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate

[Admiral Yi]

So the tree ring data in fact doesn't go up like the theory predicts.  That doesn't really help their case much.