/sci/ - Science & Math

Helping the cause!

A bump taken out of context!

Whoa???

>>4055880
>>4055897
>>4055933
I dont even need to say it, but...

S
A
M
E
F
A
G

>>4055949
...

>>4055949
bond is a complete faggot always showing his ass, just ignore him like liberty

>>4056059
Gayman, the champion of faggotry has spoken,.

bitching about colleagues

trying to ovoid endless FOI requests.

wow shocking. no evidence of anything wrong with the science.

and also there is no grantee these are even legit.

bump for epic lulz.

>>4056254
I think Mann admitted that these are legit.

>mfw I opened WUWT
FOIA, you are my hero.

Nothing that really surprised me, we all knew they are a bunch of crooks.

It's about time they get the boot, dontcha think?

>inb4 warmists dismissing the emails

>>4056312

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statements/CRUnov11
>While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems.

>If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks.

>This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.

>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.

Teach the facts, not the headlines.

>>4056407
>As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context.
They have had two years to come up with excuses and that's the best they can do?

Certainly not telling the headlines, I'm reading through them right now. I recommend everyone to do the same. It's like a crash course of what NOT to do as a scientist.

>>4056459
Have you actually read, in depth, what actual colleagues are saying about this?

I don't mean the political hacks who get paid to say: "climatologists are full of shit", but the people who actually know what they're talking about?

Holy shit! So the rumors were true:

Dec 31 23:49 1999
From: Phil Jones
Subject: One world government
to: IPCC-group
Comrades,

Soon our once-great nation will rise from the ashes of the greatest war the world has ever known. Russia has changed. But our lives will not be wasted. The master plan is proceeding apace. Adolf Hitler once said “The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Indeed, the best kept secrets are the ones that everyone knows. Double agent Anthony Watts has a remarkable summary of the global warming charade. Stupidly is his sword and Folly his shield. By placing the truth where everyone can see it — nobody can! Today we have recruited over 2,000 scientists to The Team. To you I say we have only completed a beginning. There remains much that is undone. There are great tricks undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth’s protective layers. Onward.

Phil.

>>4056474
>but the people who actually know what they're talking about?
Yeah, I've already read McIntyre.

I'm dearly awaiting "the team"'s response on this. Warmists gonna warm. Shame there is no code this time.

Also, have you actually read the emails?
>inb4 "I won't touch stolen emails"

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

Meh. Yeah, sure, climatology is all a great conspiracy. Suuuuure. They're all in bed with them evilutionists to take GAWD out of our schools, right?

>>4056500
I've read some random ones. None seemed to implicate anything, except to someone that lacks understanding.

All in all, I think this should go to >>>/x/ to join with all the other "The upperclassmen of Erehwon High WA, are plotting to take over the world!!!!111!1!!"-threads.

Though I gotta admit, with all the religiontrolling, neutrinotrolling and "MINORITY GROUP X CONTROLS/DESTROYS THE WORLD OH NOES", the resemblance to >>>/x/ can become deceiving.

>>4056523
Your tears, they are delicious.

<2009> Briffa:

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

<2775> Jones:

I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:

if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

<4716> Adams:

Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

<1790> Lorenzoni:

I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon

<3062> Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.

<1485> Mann:

the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.

<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing

<5096> Cook:

A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.

<0310> Warren:

The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands
we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.

<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]

<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.

<5289> Hoskins:

If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.

<5315> Jenkins/MetO:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

This just gets better and better. The judges are going to have a field day with this.

Pic related, it's Michael Mann's face when.


3755: “It is really important that you don’t just copy or reproduce any bits because it is not my proposal and it would be a court case in theory if a similarity was noticed.” “but for GODS SAKE please respect the sensitivity here and destroy the file immediately when finished and please do not tell ANYBODY I sent this. Cheers Keith”

0850: Barnett: [IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
3935: BBC's Roger Harrabin is on advisory board at Tyndall. This must have affected his independence re reporting of Climategate I.

2775: Jones (CRU) says choosing temperature records so as to show warming.

3373: Bradley says Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year 'reconstruction'.

4443: Jones says climate models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.

1680 Mann discussed finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre 's connections with fossil fuel interests. Keenan too. Says they have to discredit the sceptics.

you haven't actuality found anything incrimnating yet.
most of it seems to be about publishing and the rest is so out of context nothing makes sense.
none of this discredits the science. if you think its wrong, prove it in a journal, not by posting out of context emails.

>>4056756
>yet
That's the keyword right here.
Also, I have, and you'd know if you would have bothered to read what I just posted, or to do some real research for once.

>>4056770
>yet
>That's the keyword right here.
>I gotta keep digging derper, there has to be something I can use to prop up my crumbling arguments

>>4056779
The word you're looking for is "projection", my friend. Yours, particularly.

>>4056770
I read everything here, its all out of context or irrelevant.
if you would like to select a few we can go further but referring someone to a text wall is not productive.

>>4056779
[ ] Read the posts for once
[ ] Research the emails themselves
[x] Try a witty comeback that will hopefully hide my ignorance and bias in the matter

Seen from a history of science perspective this is one of the best documented cases of scientific fraud and corruption.

The 'liberation' of the mail server wasn't a traditional hack. The leaked archive was put together in response to a FOIA request and stored on the web server but not linked to on any page. Then some 'insider' published the URL and the archive was quickly mirrored to many places before it disappeared.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/comprhensive-network-analysis-shows-climategate-likely-to-be-a
-leak/

The archive itself can still be found via http://devilfinder.com/find.php?q=FOIA2009.zip

You can study the content at http://www.eastangliaemails.com (a searchable data base).

Pic very related: How they forged the data. And when it came up they 'accidentally' deleted the raw data to cover their tracks.

>>4056797
http://planet3.org/2011/11/22/been-there-done-that/

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY

Stop posting anime reaction images on the science board.

Furry to reduce some of the cancer in here.

>>4056811
>can't fight their ideas
>fight their reaction images
I see what you are trying to do here. Mad that /a/ has more scientific spirit than you bunch?

>Fluoride aside, it’s true that most crackpot arguments these days take on the veneer of science. Creationism has become Intelligent Design. Global warming deniers write lengthy statistical critiques of climate change research. Tax cutters produce Greek-letter-laden academic papers…

>…science has become increasingly debased, just another partisan tool that an increasing number of people take no more seriously than advertising claims about who has the best pizza. Scientists have their version of science and everyone else has theirs. And that version is decidedly not the same as the “elitist” version practiced by the guys in white lab coats.

>…crackpots have simply learned that their arguments sound better when they’re wrapped in the language of science. As a result, the public now seems to view science as little more than a flag of convenience for whichever side they sympathize with most.

>>4056823
>Climate deniers are just like the Tea Party!!eleven!
Been there, done that.

>>4056818
There's nothing to fight, since all you have are smoke and mirrors.

Sorry, but this audience is tired of magic tricks and would like you to leave the stage and let actual /sci/ence return.

Because that's what most of us are here for.

>>4056837
>Because that's what most of us are here for.
>Science? Too busy demonizing those who disagree
This is exactly like /a/. I feel like home here. Do you mind if I stay for a while?

>>4056846
We don't demonize those who disagree, IF they have some compelling proof.

But Some of us, me included, take a bleak view of people who bring false evidence here. Especially when that false evidence has been produced by people with such blatantly harmful agenda.

>>4056870
>But Some of us, me included, take a bleak view of people who bring false evidence here. Especially when that false evidence has been produced by people with such blatantly harmful agenda.
We agree then. Those warmist climate alarmists have no place in here.

>>4056885
have you produced any evidence anthropogenic climate change is flawed from a purely scientific argument?

>>4056899
Have you produced any evidence anthropogenic climate change is real from a purely scientific argument?

QED.

>>4056903
Not me, by any means, but a huge majority(90%+) of scientists with applicable degrees have.

You know the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ? I'd say that not being a professional in the field and calling liars those who are, seems like one extraordinary claim.

So lets see that extraordinary evidence.

Stage 1: they aren’t real emails
Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context
Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work
Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails!
Stage 5: this is old stuff
Stage 6: this is nothing
Stage 7: look everyone! Winter storm! See, we have proof of our theories now.

Repeat as needed

>>4058688
I'd like to repeat one more thing: GTFO and take your fail with you.

>>4058691
Is someone afraid? Or angry?

>You can't handle the truth!

>>4058693
No, I'm just really tired of your bullshit bumping your bullshit thread about a bullshit news in support of a bullshit agenda.

This shit is not science. It's the exact fucking opposite.

>>4058699

What is this, some fan art from the 1989 release of Battle Sim?

>>4058730
http://www.keithparkinson.com/gallery.php?icid=1&nextid=15

ITT: The science is settled(tm)

>>4058771
ITT: propaganda is sciencec