Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, hackers got documents and e-mails compromising the reputation and veracity of the climate change issue. The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach in which a hacker downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various type.
I think that at this point, so many people are firmly planted on either side of the 'debate' that few will accept this 'find' as more than a hoax itself.
For example; my SIL worships the 'creator of the internet'; she adores his discovery of the nuclear-winter that we survived in the 70s, and now his current discovery that the world is warming. She is very active in politics and refuses to acknowledge anything that would tarnish Gore's accomplishments [even when we point out that his creation of the interent happened decades after it was already in common usage].
The fact that this happened via the internet, lends itself to the assumption that it is fabricated.
The fact that this happened via the internet, lends itself to the assumption that it is fabricated.
It's no hoax, the University involved has acknowledged the documents at face value are genuine. Some of the authors involved with the emails have already tried to explain some of their comments the email contain. A site with very close ties to these people has also tried to provide explanations...
As of right now there has been no denial that the contents have been either fabricated or tampered with and this story broke on Friday.
Hoax? I thought the University has said it is genuine BUT they say they didn't "know" what the meaning of what they were saying.. basically they didn't know what their "intent" was when they say lie, lie, and lie some more... to 99.9% of the people out there, its pretty obvious what the whole point of lying is for...
...For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though. Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.
You're quoting someone at the core of this, if this was <insert large corporation you liberals all hate here> it would be like quoting an executive from that company as proof of their innocence.
It was learned that John P Holdren is involved in the scandal? At what level? Well, apparently in one the e-mails that the hackers were able to retrieve; John P. Holdren is giving instructions to some of the people at CRU to demonize and sabotage the professional careers of the so called deniers......to be continued!
You're quoting someone at the core of this, if this was <insert large corporation you liberals all hate here> it would be like quoting an executive from that company as proof of their innocence.
go read the link. Scientists who pursue truth in a peer-reviewed envrionment are not on the same plane as people who have golden parachutes and 7 figure salaries to defend.
As quoted above, scientific debate involves lots of skepticism - the multitude of factors that are lumped together under the heading of "Climate Change" are just that, a multitude of factors. There's plenty of healthy disagreement on the fine points - what is not questioned at this point is that humans are having an effect on the environment due to carbon emissions, and that is happening at a speed never before seen.
And the stakes are quite huge.
The search for evidence of mass extinction: a quarter of a billion years ago the "great dying" changed earth's ecological rules. Do current global events signal a similar revolution? | Natural History | Find Articles at BNET
THAT A "SIXTH MASS EXTINCTION" is currently underway is not hyperbole. In an assessment of the ecological health of the modern oceans, Jeremy Jackson at Scripps Institution of Oceanography describes a combination of greenhouse-gas buildup, ocean warming, increased acidification, massive nutrient runoff, pollution, and habitat destruction that has eerie similarities to our emerging picture of the end-Permian environment. The ocean contains large "dead zones" depleted in oxygen. Enormous coral reefs are dying. Reduced rates of calcification have been measured in a number of organisms. Assaulted as well by bacterial and toxic algal blooms and disease, diverse, complex marine communities and food chains are degrading into simpler ones. Overfishing by humans has disrupted marine communities, destroying their structural balance by removing the larger regulators of those systems.
The causes of the Great Dying and the current extinction event are not the same--humans were not a factor then, eruptions of flood basalts are not a factor now. Climatic conditions are different as well. We live in a cool interglacial period of geological history, not a hot, and one. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during the end-Permian crisis may have been three to six times higher than the preindustrial levels of 200 years ago. What is staggering is the pace of modern environmental degradation, which is occurring in hundreds of years rather than over tens of thousands or more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
