CRU Has Been Hacked

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

Good job, hackers.

It’s finally time to expose that Global Warming from C02 is a fraud/

I heard a lot of things about how CO2 is actually doing more good than bad…but I’m not sure if they are correct or not..

A small amount of climate data and private emails from a single university is not going to “expose global warming from CO2 as a fraud.” Nice try though.

This has been an interesting story to watch unfold.

Some of the released emails:

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.

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

So, in other words, one University doing bad science somehow disproves the entire scientific community?

Is that like saying one priest molesting young boys proves that Christianity is about pedophilia?

Originally posted by wolfinthesheep:

So, in other words, one University doing bad science somehow disproves the entire scientific community?

Is that like saying one priest molesting young boys proves that Christianity is about pedophilia?

Well yes… except there is a fine line between religion and science… ok a really big line.

Originally posted by Thatsomegoodname:

Well yes… except there is a fine line between religion and science… ok a really big line.

I could’ve used anything else for the example. Religion was just the first thing that came to mind…for some reason.

Either way, extrapolating a single incident to encompass an entire subject absolutely is stupid no matter what you’re discussing.

Originally posted by Thatsomegoodname:

I heard a lot of things about how CO2 is actually doing more good than bad…

This is definitely a statement that needs sources. I’ve never heard such such a thing.

This has nothing to do with the green movement.

Originally posted by Vanguarde77:

The green movement is exposed as the fraud it is

How dare people attempt to plant more trees and reduce smog emissions!

Originally posted by Vanguarde77:

The green movement is exposed as the fraud it is

You will find no engineer on earth that will tell you that going green is a bad thing, only the economists say so.

Originally posted by BombCog:

Originally posted by Thatsomegoodname:

I heard a lot of things about how CO2 is actually doing more good than bad…

This is definitely a statement that needs sources. I’ve never heard such such a thing.

Well yea ok I read/heard about them but not sure entirely: http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/ Basically says CO2 helps feed plants which help feed the world...

---

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d24-Is-the-EPA-suppressing-or-withholding-information-on-global-warming http://www.switched.com/2009/07/02/epa-may-have-suppressed-anti-global-warming-study/ Both says something about CO2 not being a pollutant and that the EPA has lied about it (or something along there)

---

http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/13039/Do_Environmental_Organizations_Kill_People.html Environmentalists prevent certain jobs (such as construction) in poorer countries so the people are out of jobs (and on verge of starvation)

---

Also the environmental agencies want to help stop killing polar bears but couldn't care less about 3rd World people dying: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18621

Basically says CO2 helps feed plants which help feed the world…

Except we cut down trees at an unprecedented rate, not only reducing the number around to help reduce CO2 levels but also releasing the CO2 trapped in the trees we destroy.

Both says something about CO2 not being a pollutant and that the EPA has lied about it (or something along there)

It isn’t the EPA saying CO2 is a pollutant, it is virtually every scientist in history. Hell, just a cursory understanding of science and/or history should make this fact self-evident.

Environmentalists prevent certain jobs (such as construction) in poorer countries so the people are out of jobs (and on verge of starvation)

Irrelevant. That’s like saying “trying to fix the problem is proof the problem doesn’t exist.” It makes no sense.

Also the environmental agencies want to help stop killing polar bears but couldn’t care less about 3rd World people dying: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18621

Same as above. You are just making appeals to emotion that have nothing to do with CO2 levels.

Any evidence that the “incriminating” snippets are real and have not been fabricated to discredit the CRU?

It isn’t the EPA saying CO2 is a pollutant, it is virtually every scientist in history. Hell, just a cursory understanding of science and/or history should make this fact self-evident.

Oh ok I see the first two points you make.

Irrelevant. That’s like saying “trying to fix the problem is proof the problem doesn’t exist.” It makes no sense.

On last two notes: yes I realize the problem exists but trying to control it is also a problem in itself…I mean just because they want to save the environment doesn’t mean they have to prevent the use of DDT which helps against malaria… Also the environmentalists try to appeal to emotion saying “Polar bears and penguins are dying!” yet I think people dying is much more of a concern.. (I mean yes animals becoming extinct is very bad and all)

I mean just because they want to save the environment doesn’t mean they have to prevent the use of DDT which helps against malaria…

Remember though, DDT causes lots of problems itself. Most of the things environmentalists are against are a double edged sword in the first place, they are just pointing out the ones that are safer in the long run.

Also the environmentalists try to appeal to emotion saying “Polar bears and penguins are dying!” yet I think people dying is much more of a concern..

Well keep in mind that the poor are disproportionately affected by global climate change as well, so again you have to turn more towards long term plans. Greater restrictions might slow progress (although honestly, the causes are likely to lay elsewhere), but doing nothing will harm them far more. It makes sense when you think about it, they are just more susceptible to the whims of nature than we are.

CO2 is a very nice thing… when it’s in the soil which is where plants get most of their CO2. It ones of the reason I advocate using CO2 sink fertilizers as it removes CO2 from the air and gives it to crops.
CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the biggest pains I have as a CAEE engineer as large amounts of CO2 greatly reduces the brains ability to function not only because it displaces oxygen and nitrogen, but also because it bonds to the hemoglobins that were suppose to bond to oxygen.

There is no such thing as an chemical that is not a pollutant, it just depends on how large a concentration before it becomes dangerous (a level we have long since crossed with CO2, CO, NO, and CH4 emissions).

Also, an fyi, environmental agencies care about the environment, humanitarian organizations do people. Don’t mix them.

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

I mean just because they want to save the environment doesn’t mean they have to prevent the use of DDT which helps against malaria…

Remember though, DDT causes lots of problems itself. Most of the things environmentalists are against are a double edged sword in the first place, they are just pointing out the ones that are safer in the long run.

Also the environmentalists try to appeal to emotion saying “Polar bears and penguins are dying!” yet I think people dying is much more of a concern..

Well keep in mind that the poor are disproportionately affected by global climate change as well, so again you have to turn more towards long term plans. Greater restrictions might slow progress (although honestly, the causes are likely to lay elsewhere), but doing nothing will harm them far more. It makes sense when you think about it, they are just more susceptible to the whims of nature than we are.

Hm… I don’t know about how well this long term plan is going to run… but I guess neither side is perfectly justified in their causes (both pro and against global warming).

Don’t go looking for true justice in the world, you’ll just die broken hearted. You just have to look at the results and if the end justifies the means, that’s enough.

Originally posted by TerribleToaster:

Don’t go looking for true justice in the world, you’ll just die broken hearted. You just have to look at the results and if the end justifies the means, that’s enough.

Ha thanks for that =)

Is this serious discussion in SD? … tears up