Climategate - Evidence for false view of manmade climate change?

If true it probably deserves the name "Climategate". It's about the view of a manmade climatic changes lots of scientists don't agree with. After the following report a hacker gained access to a university's climate research unit and copied e.g. correspondence showing manipulation of data in order to support the "Anthropogenic Global Warming myth"...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...global-warming/

Let's see what this turns out as...

Enjoy your meal
Toast

HAH! i knew that it was a lie.

I didn't believe in manmade global warming but I like the way we start to care about our environment. Next is to start caring about our economy. Follow the money, if it ends all in one pocket, it's time to take action.

im preaching this for years, but nobody listens. and they will continue to not listen...

and people ask me why i lost hope in mankind-.-

Doesnt that mean that climate change IS man-made?

I mean that regardless if the planet is getting hotter or not (I think not),
the evidence that supports "climate change is man made", has been made by man changing the data.

So the PROOF that climate "change is man-made" has been man-made, so climate change IS man-made.
Despite the fact the climate change stopped 10-15 years ago and stable-ised. (how do you spell that?)

Have I made myself clear? I dont quite know how to phrase what I mean.

If the evidence is man-made, therefore the (fictional) theory the evidence supports is also man-made.

That last one sounds better...

Wait, all you guys don't (or didn't) believe in (manmade) global warming?


The article you linked to didn't seem to come from a very objective source, to be honest, so I don't really want to comment on this right now, not until I've read the replies from the scientists these emails supposedly come from. Also, please keep in mind that even if true (which at this point I still kind of doubt, and even if this is true, those emailbits might just be quoted out of context in a very crass way - obviously those hackers have a certain goal in mind as well - this would only prove what few scientists have done - those are not all scientists in the world.

Also, I shouldn't post this since I won't have time to reply back

Its some emails from some (british?) University.
Does not proove anything more than the life of
scientites in a cut throat fund-searching science community.

A few scientists cant alter all worldwide data and reasearch,
so these little "insides" are irrelevant to the overall
climate discussion.

Okay, I am too lazy to read this long ENGLISH(!) text - does this mean the global warming is man-made or not?

Is the global warming higher than elsewhen?

Will we all day soon?

I am so confused...

Global warming nowadays is man-made, that's a fact just as fossil fuels run dry. Everyone denying that has no clue about the matter. I don't say that everything scientists say is true, but come on. Such a massive masquerade is not at all believable and there are so many simple evidences that there is a correlation between climate change and CO2 concentration in athmosphere that I don't really get why people keep arguing about this fact.

...Fatal Error in the page.

Global warming may be a plausible event, but whether or not it's triggered by our hands is yet unanswered. There is evidence for both sides, so there can be no conclusions drawn yet.


Surely you would give people a chance who are against it? Of course those may have sufficient knowledge about the subject to judge. Nobody really knows if manmade global warming is a truth or not. Chances that global warming is a natural process are just as big as the manmade version. But a raise of CO2 in the atmosphere -even if that where happen to prove the cause global warming- does not say it's due to our actions.

Of course I would give these people a chance and listen to what they say. Still, if you tell me that there's no proof that a raise of CO2 in the atmosphere is our fault I just don't understand your doubts. You can calculate how much fuel gets burned and how much CO2 you get as an outcome of all these chemical processes. And then, if you measure the concentration of CO2 and compare what has been added to it by what we have burned, and these numbers match exactly, following every little deviation over the years - I don't see that there is need for another proof.

And then CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas and its effects are understood quite well. There is a direct correlation between the global temperature and CO2 concentration.

http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/2/146602

during the last 4 billion years (the time the earth exists) there have been thousands if not millions of climatic changes. how did those happen, did we invent them time machine and travel back?

thing is, yes, we do burn fossils and stuff, BUT that sums it about up.
its nothing more than burning fossils. ONE volcano erruption is as hazardous to nature like TEN years of american lifestyle fossil burning (rough estimate, not by me mind you).

this whole setup makes me laugh. we are in the middle of a climatic change that would actually cause the norhtern hemnisphere to freeze, a new ice age to say. and you are worried that it gets warmer?

this is just madness, nothing more. we are NOT capable of destroying the earth. we are NOT capable of chaning the climate for more than a few degrees. we are NOT that powerful. earth couldnt care less. we may destroy our own environemnt, our own source of living, but the earth couldnt care less...

this is all bullcrap.

im NOT against actions that help save our environment. im all for saving nature and stuff. really. but this panic making scheme of some big coorporations that want to squeeze our money out of so called "bio" products and products that save the planet is just idiotic.
seperate your waste, ride a few busses instead of driving on your own and for gods sake dont blow yourself up with a nuclear missle and half our problems are solved...

this has nothing to do with the topic. of course there were other climate changes, but noone sais that we are the only ones who can cause them. but nowadays we are.


that's just wrong. if that was true we would by long have all died out.


where do you take that from? where i live snow coverage decreases year by year and glaciers melt. they don't melt because it gets warmer.


we are, mind the nuclear weapons. ever since we invented them we were able to rid out every higher living on this planet.


where do you take these from? there is no evidence for your statements. and i for my part would find it quite disturbing if we rid out our own environment.


yeah, like these other ten "this is bullshit" statements of yours which i didn't cite. i couldn't resist quoting this one, though

whilst i agree with you what you say about coorporations making money out of that bio hype, exploiting peoples narrow-mindedness, i must ask you if you would expect something else of humankind.

joey

ever heard of the kyoto protocol? read the infos about that...

also, plants NEED Co2 to survive. its what they do. they NEED Co and CO2! our problem is not the co2, its the dirt that comes with it...

never heard of the in between ice age we live in?
here, have a look:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070829193436.htm

furthermore, this article states that if we stop burning fossil fuel, we will NOT get back to where we were before. in the end, it doesnt matter...

nuclear weapons cannot destroy the planet. they can destroy the environment but not the planet. for that purpouse, we must launch all nuclear missles at the same time INTO the earths core - impossible as of now...

okay, serious, noone's talking about destroying the planet itself. and we all know that plants need co2 to survive, but still they'll take damage if it gets too hot.

and i don't really believe you have that mentality? if we can't make it undone better do nothing because you don't know how much influence you can have? if your neighbour was hitting his wife, you would stop him, surely? you can't make the bruises undone, but why not safe her life?

youre right, i dont have that mentality.
its just that i have no hope in mankind, thats all. see, i do my fair share of saving what i can.
i sperate my trash. i dont drive a car i use public transport. i dont waste energy i turn all my devices off (not standby... completely off) and i try to minimize animal transport by buying meat and stuff from austria, where i live.

i try to do my best. its just that i know that all this talk abou global warming as blown up by the media like the swine flu talk.
sure, there is global warming, but thats not entirely related to us. partially yes, but not entirely.
it gets beeter every day anyway, with new filters and stuff for big industries. there are laws for this. i dont think its as horrible as some of those outlets put it.

thats all. the climate will change. one way or the other. its boudn to happen. heck, its thousands of years overdue if you add up some numbers. thats the way this world works.

there is no profit in the destruction of the wolrd or our civilisation. and thats why i know it wont happen...

So who are we going to believe, the overwhelming majority of environmental scientist from around the world, or an anonymous hacker from (?)Russia?

I'd like to believe this is a great big hoax made up to force me to...um...consume less and take public transit. But it doesn't make much sense from a conspiracy stand point when the people in power (big industries, energy companies, large governments) have the most to lose by it being true.

Yes, I'm know some people are using this to make money. And some of those people are probably fudging the facts to get noticed. But plenty of sane people, with no 'dog in the fight' are checking the numbers and they all point in one direction: The earth is getting warmer and man is having an effect on it.

that's exactly what i think about it.

Recently there also has begun a discussion about the NIWA's data and their "adjustment policy":

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_brie...-questions.html
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf

Take a globe , if its diamter is 1 meter, the atmosphere is about 1 cm thick
look at the small circles , they are the main cities of the worlds : London, New York etc
These are the main centres of pollution on the earth which have been created by human beings
If the circles were in scale you could not even see them
The (invisible) circles emit an (invisible) smoke
Do you think that they can have a great impact on the content of C02 of the atmosphere ?

CO2 is maninly produced by the nature itself

i think it makes more sense to look at the amount of coal and oil being burned than how tiny cities are in comparison to the globe.

for example there still are at least 800 billion tons of coal that can be mined. the density of coal is a bit higher but lets say 1 ton = 1 m³. so you could make a 1 m layer with an area of 800000 km². that's almost 3 times the size of italy. i could imagine that burning it has some effect on the atmosphere. also imagine all the coal and oil that already has been burned.

When talking about CO2 it afaik would be wrong to think that it all would go into the atmosphere. I liked a comment from a farmer who said that before CO2 became a global warming nightmare it was just a gas that crawled on the ground and then was told to rise up a bit and rain down leading to soil acidification (or whatever it was)...

In my opinion and despite manmade global warming being true or not there also are things that should be considered too. I mean how many terrawatts or whatever the recent scale is do we set free in terms of electromagnetic waves? It's not like all of the waves just float around doing nothing - they most cerainly will lead to tiny heating phenomenoms. I don't know if that's a big deal or not though but I never even read of someone actually considering this seriously...

Well, it makes sense to match the CO2 emission rate and the CO2 recycle rate
The difference being the CO2 increase rate
However , I am not saying that % of the CO2 pollution due to human activities is negligible but for sure it is much lower than what people normaly assume , the main responsible being the nature itself

The yellowstone park fire, some years ago , produced more CO2 than the whole american industry in years

There are also Coal-mine-fires, especially in China
that produce more C02 than the whole traffic sector in Germany.

So instead of trying to reduce traffic with regulations,
it would be much more effective to spend the same
money into coal-fire extinguishment...

In the end, the climate is so complex, that I doubt any
projections about gloabal warming.
We simply cant know.
The projections are more or less founded guesses

yes, that's what the climate researchers do and it doesn't seem to be too difficult to me.

that the temperatures are rising and the poles and glaciers are melting is pretty much clear. i can see it myself here in the mountains. what subsequent effects this will have is uncertain. probably not that many in central europe.

Temperatures are constantly rising and falling (every winter
normally)
The question is, if there is a long term development (meaning decades and centuries), and more interestingly:
How high is the human influence on that really.

Until the end of the 19th century there was a cold-period for example
(littly ice age). Wich was deviating from the average.
So when its warmer than 100 years ago, its not clear
that this is a global warming, or simply temperatures
revolving back to the long term average.

But since we measure exact temperaturs only starting at that time, if course there was warming.

Here some medium teem temperature graph over milennia.
I cant veryfy these datas, but it looks like we had a lot
of terrible terrible global warmings before.

Even though it afaik didn't make it in the bigger media the "climategate" did lead to some results. Besides an investigation Phil Jones (afaik head of the CRU) did retire...

Some fun-facts as I didn't know CO2 is such an important factor for plants:

A small snippet out of the CRU's code:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOsLbsxOXPs&feature=player_embedded

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/31/31706/1.html

This is why sadly you cannot always trust wikipedia:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

5000+ edited articles
500+ deleted articles
2000+ people banned

Quite a record...

Scary. I mean, what can you do if Wikipedia is really corrupted? It's out of your hands .

pfff everyone can edit wikipedia. no loss there. its good for first information but its far from being a reliable source...