These quotes are from the Telegraph. You can download all the emails on Megaupload or have a glance at them on this forum.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
… but are they “peer reviewed” emails?
Who should we believe? All the scientists on the global warming payroll, whos’ livelihood depends on the Global Warming in crowd, or the open minded bloggers who look at the facts of a booming population of Polar Bears and 10 years of temperture decline?
… hmm… that’s a hard call.
To put it differently – Do you trust Fat Al?
I don’t…
Who should we believe? All the scientists on the global warming payroll, whos’ livelihood depends on the Global Warming in crowd, or the open minded bloggers who look at the facts of a booming population of Polar Bears and 10 years of temperture decline?
… hmm… that’s a hard call.
To put it differently – Do you trust Fat Al?
I don’t…
From: Obamaforever
To: Retards [aka Brock and 01001010 (spells “stupid’ in code)]
per #78, #79, #80
I do not think you Retards read the article (see #78).
Please read the article and get your head out of your collective ass.
#75 HE doesn’t understand it because he’s conFused.
#81 Keep hanging on that single article. Your sanity depends on it.
I read the article. The difference between you and I is… I understood it.
#81, my post #83 was directed at you. I thought I should make that perfectly clear since you have trouble deducing the obvious.
This is just sickening. Obamaforver, have you read ANY of the emails? Where are the posters who said this could never happen?
Peer reviewed papers soon to be available in double roll economy size, but much harsher than the leading brand.
From Tom Wigley:
” Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.”
From: Obamaforever
To: ASSHOLE (aka 01001010) and all the other Retards
I have read the article. It says that the emails were taken out of context.
One can conclude from your statements that you wrote the emails (or at least some of the emails) and/or you have a PhD in climatology.
Please provide proof that you wrote some or all of the emails and provide proof that you have a PhD in climatology.
Until then shut the fxxx up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#85, time for your meds. After you’ve calmed down, read the email I posted in #84 and comment on it. Please explain how you justify falsifying data.
Re#86, #87 was for you …again.
>used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.”
Yes, and the trick here was to ‘hide the decline’. They didn’t want the charts to show a decline, so they added on real temperatures after 1960, then used these to average in with the proxy values, thus affecting earlier values as well. Also, the guy who wrote the e-mail got it wrong. He referred to Nature trick, but it was actually a paper in GRL the next year that used that trick.
What “global warming deniers” (as it has been colorfully called here) advocate for is making an informed decision on these grand issues. Thats it, and investing so much of your emotional self into your arguments only works to strengthen our resolve, because by definition, emotion is not logical.
Assuming we could all agree that the earth is warming, far from it considering the current cooling trend, we would still have to measure that up against the global cooling scares of the resent past not to mention the global warming scare before that starting all the way back in the late 1800s. On top of that we are to believe that which ever way the temperature is going is our fault, with no more evidence that because we are here to see it…the earth isn’t set on a thermostat, flipping out over a possible fraction of a degree change over the coarse of a hundred year is the definition of insanity. Its actually amazing the temperatures are as stable as they are, and you would expect change over time.
Agreeing to a multinational treaty that will cost untold amounts of money, further crippling our economy, on the basis of a so far unproven hypothesis is ludicrous.
From: Obamaforever
To: stupid pieces of crap (aka 01001010 and MikeN)
01001010, I thought I told you to shut the fxxx up. You did not provide proof that you wrote any of the emails and you did not provide proof you have a PhD in climatology and thus you were told to shut up, retard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since I did not write the emails or have a PhD in climatology I cannot know if the data is false or not.
Retard, if you think the data is false please provide proof that the data is false.
MikeN, you are just plain stupid!!!!!!
It’s truly amazing that anyone would give this much blind faith and trust to anyone, let alone the government. Can someone please give me one good reason to blindly follow and defend the government?
Please name one single solitary thing government has done efficiently and effectively to have earned this pure dedication that so many on this board have?
From: Obamaforever
To: Derek
We are talking about “science’ and not “government”.
Please read your dictionary for the definition of “science” and “government”.
You are beyond hope, tea bagger!!!!!!!!!!!
To: anti-Climate-Change retards
It looks like I got the last word.
It feels soooooooooooo goooooooooood!!!!
#86, “stooopid”,
OK, so you “quoted” some text. Can you explain it and tell us what paper it showed up in?
#73, cranky geek
Not all man-made global warming skeptics are right wing nuts, or even right wing for that matter. How does quoting a (really bad) NYT article which ethanol tipped you off to prove him wrong? You are not making any sense. It seems that this story has rocked your worldview so much that your computational processes are unraveling.
Can you name one that isn’t?
The point about the NYT article was that TWO (2) sides were promoted. As in, the actual people named in the emails were contacted for comments. THEIR responses were posted, something the right wing nuts in denial about the science can’t be bothered to post. Not one of the links provided (other than ethanol’s) were fair, unbiased reviews. They were all hatchet jobs screaming the whole theory is a fraud without any proof.
Your own denial is more an attempt to gain “hits” instead of have an actual dialogue. Suggesting the NYT article is a “really bad” article without suggesting why only demonstrates your own preconceived idea.
If you would like another defensive quote here,
See if you can find something like that on one of the linked blogs.
#87 Alright, show us your phd. You got nuthin’!
#92 You’d look cool trying what you wrote in a mirror. Fits you nicely.
#95 Not even in your house. Your momma has the last word there.
#96 Why bother to explain anything to you. You’ll still be conFused.
#75, cranky geek,
How many of you have had any experience with research in a University setting and are surprised by this? When I was in school, I can say with some certainty that at least half of the papers written by my department had fudged facts
Ya, I heard that happens a lot in Elementary Schools. [/sarcasm] I know that when I went to school if you were ever caught fudging facts, you ended up with a goose egg for a mark. No exceptions. I even heard of being kicked out of a program.
They do, however, serve as a reminder that scientists and researchers are rarely unbiased and do have their own motives to prove their work. ESPECIALLY when their work is being funded by governments who have a political stake in using this issue to gain more power.
Spoken like a schizophrenic fool. Instead of pointing out where these scientists are wrong, you suggest they must be because they take government money and government want more power. They HAVE to be biased because you don’t like them or their conclusions.
Typical wing nut philosophy. I confess, even the far left does that conspiracy stuff too.
Grant money will always flow to people who those who can present new ideas and show data to back them up. And it is much easier to back up ideas riding on already published and accepted works.
I and most graduate students wish that is how grant money is distributed. I guess your grant was denied.
My own experience was that grants depended upon several factors, including; the grantees alma mater, the stature of the professor, commercial possibilities, even the status of the school.
It is very rare to see research that shows a new idea actually will not work. If you have some serious credentials, you might be able to get a paper accepted that shows flaws in an old idea or theory, but will get you neither or praise from your peers.
I disagree. This happens all the time. You present your research and I tear that research apart. If it withstands the scrutiny, your research is accepted. If errors (hopefully inadvertent) are found they can be corrected and the paper adjusted as needed.
As much can be learned from trying to dispute an idea as went into creating it in the first place. “Why” is the best thinking promoter.
Unfortunately those that willfully resort to fudging facts seldom understand how this works. Liars usually are found out when they forget which facts they fudged.