Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

The climate changes, always has, always will. We aren't going to change that. CO2 is such a small factor, but such a strong focus, which is why I believe the way I do. The GW team would have better credibility if they could show more of the story, rather than one weak point. Climate changes aren't solely bases on man's CO2 emissions, not even a large enough portion to get all worked up about. Ice core samples? The polar regions are tiny compared to the rest of the world, yet that was where this whole mess started. Why even consider tree growth rings? Because the are similar to the layers in the ice core samples? Guess the GW guys really like boring holes into things, tree-buggery? Trees growth isn't year round, mostly in the spring/early summer, not going to tell you much beyond a few months per year, don't need a PhD to be aware of that.

Climate changes are the combination of a number of factors, and there are limits to how far they swing each way. This whole Eco-trend doesn't address any other reason why temperatures appear to be rising, and don't have much to say about an upper limit or turning point. We are being deliberately lead to a certain predefined conclusion, based on some questionable data, and weak science. We are being sold theory and hypothesis as hard facts. We are being lead to believe that the temperatures will never stop rising, and little or no CO2 is being removed from the atmosphere.

I just don't buy into there is only one cause, and only one conclusion, one solution. There are usually many ways to look at things, several solutions to every problem, why is CO2 the magic cure all? This is just one small step, once it's given governmental power, it's going to keep growing, because we aren't going to see the results.

I learned a long time ago, that people pressuring you into buying something immediately, are usually trying to scam you out of your money...

HarveyH42 said:

aware of that.


This is just one small step, once it's given governmental power, it's going to keep growing, because we aren't going to see the results.

I learned a long time ago, that people pressuring you into buying something immediately, are usually trying to scam you out of your money...

Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better

ke5frf said:

"Hitler was Roman Catholic."

Yes, ....and? Liberache was gay, what does that have to do with anything?
You wouldn't make a good attorney. Please stick to topics relevant to the conversation. Nobody here claimed Hitler was a scientist or atheist.

Click to expand...

That is the topic. You were trying in vain to make it look like scientists and atheists were responsible for all the evil in the world. You brought up the great genocides of history. Since you're trying to make a connection to the mass murders of these genocides and atheism, then pointing out that those murders have religious beliefs and are not atheists, then I have not gone off topic. In fact, it is you who has gone OT with this rant to begin with.

"Stalin was schooled in a priest seminary, where he was taught to defend the poor and disadvantaged against the rich and privialedged."

A LITTLE more relevant, but not much. If I went to clown school would that make me a clown? They have a climateology class at LSU. If I take that class will it make me a climateologist? No? Ah, then Stalin attending a seminary doesn't make him a priest or reflect his religious views then. Glad we see this now.

Click to expand...

You don't appear to need clown school. But Stalin at least had a religious background, and there is from his writings and that of his family's he retained his religious beliefs. In fact, he "hated" religion so much that he awarded the "Stalin's Prize" to an English clergyman in 1951.

"Pol Pot was Buddist and also attended Catholic school. The Kumar Rouge was also Buddist. Pol Pot was against the advances of science and tried to destroy or suppress them"


You do realize that the Khmer Rouge wasn't a person, right? Khmer Rouge was the Cambodian COMMUNIST government. Pol Pot was its leader. He had rejected Buddhism. BTW what is a "buddist"? Is that someone who worships flowers? Please go read a book.

Here is what the Khmer Rouge did to Buddhism:
Preah Maha Ghosananda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QUIT WHILE YOU ARE AHEAD.

Click to expand...

Did I say the Khmer Rouge was a person? I did not. But now you're making me laugh. The Khmer Rouge begain as a small insurgent guerrilla movement in 1963. As with most of these insurgent movements, there was common beliefs among the members. So to say they were Buddists makes perfect sense, that is to anyone was has some mental activitiy. I'm not sure what your probelm is understanding that. They were in power between 1975 and 1979, otherwise they were either fighting against the governemt or was in exile in the northern jungles, so it's not exactly correct to state they were the Cambodian governemt. For most of thier existance, they were the anit-government. Most of the members were Theravada Buddists. These beliefs were practiced by the group: selflessness, accepting privation, living simply in the forrest and exercising moral disclipline. Indeed, religious beliefs makes it easier for young, idealistic recruits to be assimilated. We only need to look at the highly religious muslems that have been co opted by radical organizations such as Al-qaeda. When the Khumer Rouge diposed the government on Phem Phenn, they evacuated 2.5 million people without consideration of their religion. Evacuating the monastaries was in line with thier beilefs that everone would be treated the same, and nobody was to hold a position of power.

Pol Pot himself had previously served in a Buddist monastery. It doen't take a rocket scientist to see how he could use his religion to recruit and retain foot soldiers. During the reigh of terror, he not only targeted religious establishments, but also education, science and medicine. No formal establishment could be spared from his obsession to distroy every vestige of social order.

But anyway, it was you who took us off-topic, so quite griping about O/T posts. You want to try to convince us that we can't trust scientists or atheists, which is just plain weird since that isn't what the GW debate is about. And as common with the cult of personality that pervades your ilk, you use nothing more than right-wing religious fundamental propaganda in your arguements and pretend to be the authority in all subjects from history to religion, and chide anyone who disagrees to "read more history" Your junk science and historical perspectives are straight out of the wing nut handbook, and it is you who has lost credibility.


PS: I am aware that there are probably typos and mis-spellings in my post. I'm not a terrific speller, and redily admit that. But I research everything I write, rather than just put up a bunch of propaganda, and I consider that much more important than fixing every typo. So go ahead and whine about every little letter that's out of place. Looks like that's all all you have anyway. That and wing-nut propaganda.

"As with most of these insurgent movements, there was common beliefs among the members."

Sounds like the eco-movement insurgency with their biases.

And you are wrong about Pol Pot just as you are about Stalin. Both rejected religion in favor of atheism. Both were tyrants. You can stir it around any way you wish, but history is history.

Wow This turned into an interesting and somewhat disturbing read
What I got out of this so far was multiple fairly level headed people trying to discus what they feel and understand and one person having a psychological meltdown/temper tantrum because no one unquestioningly agreed with him.

Anywho... For as long as I can remember what I have understood and see of issues like this and have thought of them there are three main categories or camps that people will associate with or can be associated with. From what I have ever seen read and think this is basically how they can be broken down and are most commonly associated with for good or bad.


Camp 1. The non believers. This group has a large amount of confirmable data and information and are also typically aware of how the earth has cyclic changes over the millennium. They know change happens and are accepting of it. They also are accepting to having others disagreeing with them. They have strong supportive evidence to backup their beliefs and are not likely to be easily swayed but given solid proof they will accept new information willingly.
They are almost never seen on the news or general media for lying, manipulating data, or omitting facts or trying to further there causes with bullying or manipulation tactics. They have well founded sources for their information but get very little attention for it most of the time.


Camp 2. The need more information people. These people base their beliefs on proof as well. If they are given solid confirmable proof of something they will adjust and make changes. They are not for or against the notion of global climate change but must have solid proof before they will take sides. They have concerns but dont know if they are real or justified as of yet because of lack of evidence from their prospective.
They are rarely seen on the news or general media for any reasons. They need well founded sources for their information and are willing to act but wont until they have solid proof of something as they see it. They also get very little attention most of the time.


Camp 3. The climate change believers. They have good intentions and some creditable evidence and data for their claims but are unfortunately also the most well known for using lies, data manipulation, false data, scaremongering, bullying and threats to back themselves up. They are seen most often basing their beliefs on questionable proof more often than anyone else. They are also more likely to make unrealistic and often times ultimately far more damaging changes based on fanciful whims and speculative information than anyone else as well. Their cause and beliefs may be just in many ways but at times their questionable tactic's and approaches are often whats working against them the most.
They are the most seen and questioned on the news and general media, nearly weekly, for constantly having their sources found to have been lying, manipulating data,omitting facts and trying to further there causes with bullying or manipulation tactics. They seem to also have the largest amount of least reliable proof and sources for their information. They are also most willing to act without confirming that what they want may have worse implications that had they done nothing.


Personally I am between camp 1 and 2.

What I got out of this so far was multiple fairly level headed people trying to discus what they feel and understand and one person having a psychological meltdown/temper tantrum because no one unquestioningly agreed with him.

Click to expand...

Ha, ha, ha.. another comedian. BTW, I'm not here to make friends, but to get the record straight, if you're talking about me. Those who feel threatened by my postings are all on the GW deniers side of the debate, and seem to have nothing to rebut my facts with other than personal attacks. Notice that nobody who supports the science thinks I'm having a temper tantrum or psychological meltdown.

But if you're talking about someone else, then disregard this post.

I was not trying to be funny or humorous in any way. I am sorry if you see this as humor.

What facts? Really what facts have you presented here? Show us all!
Please. What facts?

So far you have given what, three links that have almost no useful data or information. One has a few graphs that show a microscopic CO2 level change. The other is from a California based research committee or something.
From my perspective anyone or anything that comes form California bases persons is not worth the paper it written on any more.

Everyone else has presented far more relevant links data and sites and not one of those people appears to be trying to force their beliefs on anyone. They have been fair, polite, and reasonably courteous as well through whole thread. You on the other had have been rude, demeaning, and bullying in nearly every single post you have made!

Your all over the tcmtech and Ke5frf guys and their not even trying to fight with you! I suppose since I am here and simply posted a personal opinion as to what I feel and it does not conform to your desires I will be your next target?

Go for it! knock your self out!

I don't see any need in going back over the facts I've posted. If you can't read the thread, it's not my problem. What is relevant or not relevant depends entirely on what side of the debate you are on. It is of course your prerogative to ignore the sound science I've presented, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. And that you chose to dismiss data based on the geography from where it originates suggests you're interest is not in the information, but some ancillary issue, so I'm not surprised that you would ignore the rest of it. On the other hand, those who want to review the information and learn can get alot of good, sound facts out of my research and presentations.

And I'm not fighting with anyone. They predictably felt the need to attack me and want to have my facts and information muted by site management, because it flies in the face of their own beliefs and opinions. You don't see anyone but the deniers carping and whining about anything I've written. So I must be doing something right.

BrownOut said:

Ha, ha, ha.. another comedian. BTW, I'm not here to make friends, but to get the record straight, if you're talking about me. Those who feel threatened by my postings are all on the GW deniers side of the debate, and seem to have nothing to rebut my facts with other than personal attacks. Notice that nobody who supports the science thinks I'm having a temper tantrum or psychological meltdown.

But if you're talking about someone else, then disregard this post.

Click to expand...

Dillusions of persecution to go along with it.

"They predictably felt the need to attack me and want to have my facts and information muted by site management, because it flies in the face of their own beliefs and opinions"

More evidence.

There you go again. Nothing but personal attacks, that's all you have and all you'll ever have.

Mostly Global Warming and CO2 are guessing and speculating, not hard proof, just something that look good on paper. It's a big planet, no way every square mile is represented on these global figures. As seen in the Emails, mostly just the areas that support the cause.

Very unlikely that reducing, eliminating, regulating CO2 emissions global, will have even the slight effect promised, what then? The planet is still going to get warmer, in your best projections, we might stretch it out a little longer before it peeks. From what I've seen in my short life (47 years), this would seem like a very bad idea. We will have a longer hot spell, it will stay near the peak high temperatures, and take longer to get back down to where we are now. And of course it doesn't bottom out there, and start over, the temperature will continue to drop. The Global Cooling trend begins, and should last about as long as the Warming trend. I hate the cold, but my bones will be dust, long before it gets really hot.

We got plenty of serious problems to occupy our time and resources, going green extreme right now isn't going to help anyone, and it's going make preparing for the changing Earth more difficult. We should be planting a lot of trees, grasses, and food plants. Anywhere and everywhere we can. The roots will help keep the top soil from washing away in the floods, and there will be some food available for the displaced survivors. Plants will also pull some of that water vapor and CO2 out of the atmosphere, make use of some of that heat energy, provide some shade. The higher temperature, CO2, and humidity is prime for plant growth, make the most of it would a good choice, but unfortunately Al Gore probably doesn't see much profit in it.

Tell the truth, not even sure we are on a record setting warming trend anymore. Probably just another 7-12 year job, maybe long enough to melt the ice caps, and raise the oceans 5-6 inches, or whatever the best guess was.

Ok, I admit that was a little on the personal side. I apologize. Perhaps you just APPEAR to have dillusions of persecution. But a piece of advice. Do not allow yourself to come off as taking this so personally. People are piling on to you because of it. Nobody has piled on to kChriste, Mikebits, or anyone else that agrees with you. We have simply exchanged opinions. If you take the emotion out of it, you won't get anything that resembles a personal attack. It is like the kid who keeps yelling "quit picking on me". No, the people picking and laughing shouldn't be doing it, but the kid should have the self confidence to not perceive others as his enemy. They pick at him because he shows low self confidence. We pick at you because you use argument tactics that have been established to be flawed by the standards of debate. You use logical fallacies like "Appeal to Authority" in your arguments. For example, stating your college background. Thousands of people graduate from college with similar backgrounds every year. I myself attended college and took Physics, Chemistry, Biology courses. I excelled. But I do not use them as a source of credentials, because they aren't. Without being a climate scientist I have no credentials.

Therefore, no argument I make can be supported by my background. My background id unrelated to the topic. Anyone who can READ has the same news media and online information available to them. We all are on equal footing, because the data, as presented to us, is presented equally to ALL OF US. Unless you work at a university that contributes to climate reasearch or are privy to unpublished government information, it is doubtful that you have been exposed to anything different than I or anyone else.

Therefore, it is SIMPLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY a matter of your CHOICE TO BELIEVE in the integrity of the data as presented. The theories behind climate change are so vast as that NOBODY is an expert in all of it. It takes the combined expertise of many thousands of scientists, counting on each other's expertise and credentials, to crunch the data and present the data to the public. Climate modelling by computers requires multiple algorythms from various diciplines. Even the models have difficulty in agreeing because different methods and algorythms are used.

So for any internet poster, you, I, or anyone else, to state their understanding of the data as more informed than another is preposterous. All you have, all that you've got, is the same load of information that we all have. And from there, it is this simple, you have made a CHOICE to BELIEVE it, based on your own biases and beliefs. You have formed an OPINION and nothing more. An opinion to agree with the data as presented. A choice to not question it.

Anyone can do that, it takes no special knowledge or skill.

And it is certainly within your rights and it doesn't make you wrong or me right. But the reverse is true as well.

This is why sand is being kicked in your face. Anonymous internet posters who act like authoritative experts on topics like this without having relevant credentials to back it up will always catch flack. (I.E. published work relating to the topic, PhD level training in the specifics of climate change and modelling, desertation related to it, etc)

Again, having taken undergraduate physics in college hardly qualifies you any more than the next person. Since when did going to college become something out of the ordinary?

I knew very well that you and those like you were going to jump on me when I posted, and I was prepared for it. I'm not like Kchristy and Mikebits, as I don't care anything for soft-peddling around those who taunt and redicule. I live by the creed that when I'm kicked in the teeth, I kick back harder. Those who can't handle that should not be jumping at me in the first place. No, it's not that I'm complaining that people picking on me, I cand handle that with no problems at all, but just being honest that when people run out of arguments to make, they turn to pesonal attacks. Shoot the messenger. Some start off that way, using a pre-emptive approach, and I'm not shy about pointing that out too. I've been in too many of these debates to not recognize the dodges used to discourage people from stating their opinions. As for my education, it was in response to another poster who stated the many who believe and support the GW science don't know enough about Physics to understand the issues. You've taken what I wrote out of context and want to make it sound like I'm bringing it up for no reason,other than trying to represent myself as some special authority, while the whole purpose was to quiet the niose about how our side doesn't know enough to speak informatively. That argument comes up over and over, so get used to me speaking about my background, because if someone else makes it relavant, I'll remind everyone why I think I'm more than qualified to discuss these issues. I have clearly no lack of self-confidence, as I stand in and take whatever shots you can dish out. You just can't taunt me enough to make me go away.

Notice it's only you and a couple other members who are, as you've put it, "picking and laughin?" While I get along just fine with most of the other members who've posted. Why would that be? If you were right, and I was such a distraction, then there would be more then just those few. Some even seems to have given up on trying to discourage me. It was predicted that I would be banned by now, yet the moderators evidently see nothing wrong with what I've written. So, the only truly neutral observers don't seem to agree with you, or else they would have either banned or warned me. Nothing of the sort has happened. Either way, you've only stated an opinion about my methods, and so let's just keep it in perspective.

And so, I will state at this time that I claim no special knoweldge or skills that allow me to understand the science behind GW research, and I never have. The only thing I've attempted to do is read as much as I can on the topics being discussed and post what I've found. One thing I do know is there are always two sides to every story, and until I began to post on this thread, only one side was being discussed. When I hear a chorous of voices in perfect agreement, the first thing I think is there is something wrong with this picture, and there must be another side to the story. And so I set out to find it, and more often then not, I am right, and there are parts not being discussed. Only after I began to question some of the conclusions in here did some of the other's who support my views came on and post. And while they were careful not to ruffle anyone's feathers, I decided to be frank and direct. Some people can handle that and some can't, but that wasn't my concern. As I've said, I'm not here to make friends.

"When I hear a chorous of voices in perfect agreement, the first thing I think is there is something wrong with this picture, and there must be another side to the story"

Like a scientific consensus?

After reading the last three pages I at least personally feel vindicated for putting those links to the gigantic stop sign early on in the thread and think that by ANY measure of a conversation bryan1 owes me an apology for saying I had a god complex. Not that there weren't a few posts with validity or intelligence, this is never a problem, however I believe what I said has at this point has completely come to fruition and there will likley be at least another 3+ pages added to this thread by next week this time.

ke5 even as poorly understood as day to day weather is with even a conservative element of randomness no two weather simulations every come out exactly the same, and this is over a day or week long period let alone years or milenia, and we don't even truly know the dynamics that cause what we can measure from the past in the first place. There will never be a consensus in this department, there can never be one. That's why it's a waste of time to discuss it in the first place.

The best science can do at this point is attempt to collect as much data from as many different points as possible, atempt to discover trends and convergences in data and make best guesses, due to the complexities of the system involved we are mathematically unable to every properly model the entire system so we can never predict the future, just make educated guesses. So what we're realling voting on is who has the best guess. Years from now something new is going to have come up some this or that that will turn it all around, and the year after that... and the year after that, ad nausea. It's been like that since the begging of the climate 'debate'

"That's why it's a waste of time to discuss it in the first place"

How about you let us decide how we choose to waste our time?

You can decide however you wish ke5, I'm completly incapable of changing anyones' mind, I am however free to state my own opinion and let people decide for themselves, which is all I have done. Trying to silence my opinion would be a form of censuring no better than those scientists whom started this whole 'climategate' debacle in the first place. You should keep that readily in mind.

Unlike the moderators here I have no recourse but to state what I have to say in black and white. In the case of the stop sign posts I do in part apologize because I know how much they stood out, however that was their entire point. As far as my opinion goes about this being a waste of time lets not argue about it but discuss it rationally. Using a simple bullet style list name the few points that have been discussed that meet your requirement for this thread NOT being a waste of time, and I'll respond.

"Trying to silence my opinion would be a form of censuring no better than those scientists whom started this whole 'climategate' debacle in the first place. You should keep that readily in mind."

But isn't this exactly what you are doing by objecting to the thread?

Scead. You are a good participant in this forum. I understand your distaste for debate that you find pointless. In reality, the nuances of the science ARE kind of pointless to debate. My main interest in this is the integrity of the science and scientists. I have been exploring these e-mails for a couple of weeks now. Many blatant comments by the CRU scientists cut to the core issues of due diligence and integrity. Some of the comments are more subtle but still wreak of biased intentions.

This is a current affair in the global-political-scientific community that affects us all. If Carbon cap and trade is passed it WILL affect the global market. Distribution of wealth WILL occur, with industrialized nations funding tyrants and rogue governments in third world countries.

You can take issue with the discussion. It is your right. Just don't expect your objections to stop it. Also, don't open your browser on threads like this expecting the world's problems to be solved. That isn't the purpose. These forums are a place for people to vent and vet their frustrations and opinions publicly. We can't all be senators or representatives of government.

The CO2 emission being the core, and the key to the 'crisis' is mainly what I take issue with. We still have many decades left before the situation actually developes, if ever. We have many more pressing issue that need attention much soon, or really won't make a lot of difference anyway. For this country, we are having an economic crisis, and i don't understand our governments response, borrow money to give away. People are unemployed, having to borrow money to live on, that they can't hope to repay. And our president is asking the lenders to make more loans. Still no jobs, huge debts, and talks of raising money through new or higher taxes, which few can or will pay, because they have no income. Health Care reform isn't going to help the economy, and encourage more people to visit doctors and hospitals. Cheap source of drugs, insurance covers them, go in complaining of pain, doctor gets paid the same whether he runs a bunch of tests, or just writes a prescription. Doctor can write prescription faster than running a dozen tests... My company is self-insured, meaning we pay 100% of are doctor bills, the insurance company gets paid to administer the plan and options. Since we aren't paying into the insurance pool, health care reform will make sure we help out the less fortunate, meaning we will get taxed. This is going to hurt our already struggling business.

Carbon emissions taxes, fees, and regulations, will pretty much kill our business. We are a distribution warehouse, 19 division in the US, and 5 in other countries. Burning diesel is necessary to our business. So, yes, I am a little concerned about whether or not the science is accurate, or just a lot of what-if reasoning. To somebody like Al Gore, if he's wrong, no big deal, at least he got people to buy a bunch of shiny new cars, and gut those ugly clunkers off the road, cleaned up the air a little. I'm not picky about my ride, yeah, they have all been somebodies junker, some free, rescued from the scrapyard. Just need basic transportation, not $30,000 debt. So, I'm looking at losing my job, my savings, and transportation, and for what? A weak theory?

Mankind isn't going to die out, we will survive. Maybe not the governments, or societies, but many people will adapt and get by just fine, no matter what happens. Me, I'm health, strong swimmer, fairly intelligent and resourceful. Figure my chances are pretty good.

I did have some thoughts on lowering the seas, and reduce flooding... Why not start building space-tankers, and start hauling water to the moon? Seems like we could live there, if there was water. We could hook up some solar panels and HHO generators to separate the water automatically, and eventually create an atmosphere.

This is a current affair in the global-political-scientific community that affects us all. If Carbon cap and trade is passed it WILL affect the global market. Distribution of wealth WILL occur, with industrialized nations funding tyrants and rogue governments in third world countries.

Click to expand...

That is more of the underlying reasons so many people either won't believe or wont take it for the truth until its been well proven.
Even now with the added information and communications abilities we have it still makes finding the real truth even harder at times. We get too much conflicting information and opinions than ever before.
We are not the horrid unbelievers as some portray us but we are not blind followers either.

So much of the population is wise enough to know that they should not take something like this for what the politicians and environmentalists want them to believe. Its based on a fairly standard method of gaining more money and power from people with their free consent. Everyone of us has been fooled into believing something at least once that ended up doing more harm than help to us and never getting any gainful return for it.

Too many people have been fooled too many times by governments and officials now and just know better than to blindly let them make decisions for us. We may not know the real truth but we do know that when big government starts looking at an issue watch out! Their reasonings are not always for our best interests.

If carbon cap and trade is or similar politically driven agendas are implemented and then later proven to be wrong we will still be stuck with them and there restraints afterwards. Government does not give up its ability to control and tax willingly. We all know and agree on that at least.

For many of us that is more of the underlying issue. I am not and have not debated that we dont need to change our ways and improve how we live but I will argue to the best of my ability that if more government regulations are going to put on me I want the absolute truth shown to me first that justifies and supports their implementation.