What is Digg?Sponsored by truTV
143 Comments
- GregLoire, on 11/26/2009, -21/+59Digg's demographics are so weird. I can't think of another otherwise progressive, science-savvy group of people that doesn't believe in global warming. (And this has been going on since long before the emails, which aren't exactly conclusive proof anyway.)
Now go ahead and bury me. We'll find our common ground in the next story about legalizing marijuana or something. - Jordan117, on 11/26/2009, -10/+46The copious anti-global-warming comments are coordinated astroturf, all from the same users that digg up Fox News editorials and Drudge Report headlines. Freepers, basically. Users like bettverboten, DavidNiven, thinkb4utype... just look at their comment histories. They're hard-core right-wingers. Apparently they think that if they fill up the first dozen comments in any global warming-related story with "Buried, everyone knows it's a hoax," that this will neutralize decades of peer-reviewed research from people who actually know what they're talking about.
- wootup, on 11/26/2009, -24/+55Yes, I did. Did you bother reading the leaked mails themselves?
They prove, or rather disprove, nothing.
Stick to peer-reviewed scientific studies and you will see a veritable landslide of scientific evidence that global warming is happening and that human industrialism is the leading cause of it. - rlbond86, on 11/26/2009, -11/+34Looks like the crazies are out in full force. For those of you who haven't ACTUALLY READ the emails, try it. They were taken out of context.
For example, people are all over this "trick" of adding temeratures together. However this use of the word trick is the same as saying, "it's possible to use only one pointer for a doubly-linked list by using the trick of XORing the previous and next pointers." - magibeg, on 11/26/2009, -8/+31People aren't being reasonable anymore when it comes to the global warming issue so it's not surprising you're being dugg down.
Most of the people haven't actually read the so called hoax e-mails and code, those that have quote them out of context usually. Furthermore it doesn't address all the climate scientists in the world agreeing that global warming is actually happening (well 97% of them anyway) or the fact that every single nation science association agrees that global warming is happening. - Rantus, on 11/26/2009, -8/+30You know what I find incredible about the whole denial of Global Warming crowd? They actually think that spewing billions of metric tons of carbon and CO2 into the air will have no repercussion. Whatever happened to every action has an equal and opposite reaction? Or how about that energy can neither be created no destroyed but can only move from one state to another? There's a helluva lotta wasted energy in even the most efficient combustion engine design. So where is that wasted energy going? Into the atmosphere maybe? But there's no impact from that either. And hey, don't ever even mention that sea levels are rising and the oceans are acidifying because that don't mean jack neither. All that matters is that we keep living our lives exactly the way that we want to, without having to make any effort to change or improve current wasteful energy infrastructure. it's not about being industrialists, inventors, astronauts or physicists. Its about making money, being pimps and having attention whores on our tip. Yeahhhhh.
What happened to us? For a while there, you know, after we eliminated slavery, brought forth the industrial revolution, stopped fascism and accomplished other little things like landing on the moon I thought that maybe we were onto something good for a while there. I guess not. And make sure that when electric cars finally make to the road en masse that you don't buy them to drive the price down even if you can easily afford them because Global Warming is a hoax, just ask any oil company. Oh, and make sure you don't buy one from GM even if their design is superior to all other because they took a whole $1.29 in taxes from you when they got their govt loans. Screw them man. - inactive, on 11/26/2009, -21/+39American Republicans say that global warming is a myth. Good enough for me. I watch Fox News every day. Republicans and Rupert Murdoch are looking out for me and the generations to come. I have total confidence in them. Why worry? What, they may be really old white guys trying to get as much money before they die? Please. Even Dick Cheney wouldn't sink that low.
- rlbond86, on 11/26/2009, -5/+22That's funny, because when I plot the temperature from the last 150 years in excel, it goes up
- paulyoung1980, on 11/26/2009, -3/+18nearly every comment on this page has a large number of diggs and buries...... it amazes how an issue based on science can be so divisive
- TheMachine1, on 11/26/2009, -4/+19I only buy from sweat shops that use nuclear power.
- HeyBob, on 11/26/2009, -2/+16What a stupid sentence:
"The study was notable in that it was performed by experts in insurance and actuarial research, rather than climate researchers, which implies more objectivity and financial-industry rigor"
What are they basing their conclusions on then if not the science? - pseudocitizen, on 11/26/2009, -1/+15Why is it global warming makes headlines but not short sighted problems like direct and indirect toxic polluting of air and water and deforestation?
- detcade, on 11/26/2009, -23/+36"now confirmed as a complete hoax in my own little bubble fantasy world where books and scientists don't exist" you mean
- whatthefu, on 11/26/2009, -6/+19It's not confirmed as a hoax. Sorry you had to change your pants for nothing.
- amish4play, on 11/26/2009, -5/+16By simple calculations, i assume you mean the massive amount of misinformation that has been spread?
- Ne007, on 11/27/2009, -1/+12It may not be all lies, but for sure there have been many coordinated lies and deceptions concerning global warming.
- Rantus, on 11/26/2009, -2/+13Did you actually read any of the emails? Why don't you actually do that then?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487047 ...
You know what this proves? This proves that people doing climate research are under constant attack from skeptics who don't want to believe anything that might impact their lifestyle. You know, people like you. Maybe they don't want to release their data to skeptics because its their data, they're still analyzing it, and people like you would take any piece of it they could out of context to drum up ***** controversies that global warming is a hoax. Kind of like what they did with these emails, which does not prove that it is a hoax in any way. It is rather a continuous, ongoing investigation that people should get the hell out of the way of.
And what the hellis wrong with clean tech anyway? What is so bad about solar and wind energy and electric cars? How about smart grids? Hydrogen for power plants? Nope, screw that, let's just keep polluting. I really don't understand the premise of people like you. Even if global warming isn't as bad as previously thought why would we still not want to move forward with cleaner, better energy? WTF is up with that? - ryanonfire, on 11/26/2009, -0/+10:O I didn't know it was that bad
- greenfyre, on 11/27/2009, -5/+14A fact, a single fact completely pwn lies
CO2 and the Volcanoes
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/co2-and-the ...
Fable: CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957 ...
Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=earthtalks-vol ...
Volcanoes and Climate Change, Part 1 http://helicity.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/volcanoes ... - rlbond86, on 11/26/2009, -4/+13Global Warming is more than a 10-month long phenomenon. There is a STRONG UPWARD TREND in global temperatures in the last 150-200 years. Just because there have been a few outliers doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist. 1998 was very hot so the temperatures have been relatively low compared to that.
I find it amazing that people who are NOT CLIMATOLOGISTS accuse pretty much every climatologist of lying. As if a prerequisite of studying climate science is signing an oath to lie about global warming. - greenfyre, on 11/26/2009, -2/+11It's more fun than sticking my head up my own behind and pretending reality doesnt exist.
The Science - deal with it and spare us the juvenile lack of logic
2907 Most-Cited Authors on Climate Science
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ...
"The science behind a climate change headline"
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/the-scie ...
"The scope and scale of climate science"
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/2008/12/ ...
Pls tell us which of those studies are wrong, how they are wrong, and how that makes all of the other 10s of thousands wrong too. - roy5000x2, on 11/26/2009, -7/+15Only $9 trillion? Psh. We'll be at $90 trillion! Bigger is better, right?
- amish4play, on 11/26/2009, -10/+18Or maybe it's because of the upcoming summit? I know, it's foolish to expect deniers to follow real news.
- Rantus, on 11/27/2009, -3/+11Thanks greenfyre. You saved me some trouble.
- cashmonkey, on 11/27/2009, -2/+9That's wishful thinking. 90% are fully crazy.
- Wakkyweed, on 11/26/2009, -0/+6Be careful! Poe's Law almost applies here.
- amish4play, on 11/26/2009, -4/+10Those are reported, but without any spin. Unfortunately, once you remove the spin, the story is nothing more than a story about hacked emails.
- anonymousmedic, on 11/27/2009, -0/+5Here. Let me fix this for you:
"American idiots"
Pseudoscience and denialism is one of the few omnipartisian things that American Politics shares. - Dralha, on 11/27/2009, -2/+7It's because there are a lot of libertarian loons on Digg who masturbate to Ayn Rand.
- Jordan117, on 11/26/2009, -13/+17You are incorrect.
- acknotSW, on 11/26/2009, -3/+7Most 3rd world countries today are leapfrogging the development path by buying up 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation technology from developed nations for pennies ON THE POUND! The developed nations spent hundreds if not thousands of dollars per pound if you count the deployment and replacement costs. This is a huge win win for everyone involved and should drastically reduce the overall damage to the environment that 1st world nations inflicted whole developing and deploying these technologies the first time through.
- gmeinsch, on 11/26/2009, -7/+11You're right. A handful of scientists connected to the UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA have tried to cover up SOME evidence refuting global warming.
Man made global warming doesn't exist!! Lets keep polluting!! - TheMachine1, on 11/26/2009, -9/+13Many of them accept man made global warming is a reality, but think the estimation of its economic consequences has been massively over estimated.
- greenfyre, on 11/26/2009, -4/+8"But fact. Replicable, verifiable. FACT. That is the only truth I am interested in."
Here you go .... Here is a list of the 2907 most frequently cited authors of climate research with links to their work (10s of thousands of papers)
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ... - inactive, on 11/27/2009, -0/+3Oh, look... Greenfyre is *still* spamming links to the blog of the very people caught red ***** handed in climate fraud.
- angryredplanet, on 11/27/2009, -1/+4Okay, care to comment on the particle-wave duality of light?
- inactive, on 11/27/2009, -1/+4It is helpful to know a bit more about CRU. There are only two sources for world-wide historical and current data from ground based thermometers. NASA is one, and CRU is the other.
Great Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU), takes raw climate information from around the world and then after they make modifications to it they release the modified version ONLY to the scientific community. They completely refuse to share the original climate data or the method they use to modify it.
To have publicly funded scientists refuse to allow open peer review in this manner is simply unheard of. Yet CRU repeatedly ignores Freedom of Information requests for the original data.
This news article detailing their evasions predates the whistle blower leaks people are now discussing:
<quote>
We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests
13th August 2009
The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.
The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
Even if World Meteorological Organization agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn't have to fulfil the requests because "Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites".
Now it's citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down.
As for the raw station data,
"We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn't impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.
McIntyre says he doesn't expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed.
<end quote>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missin ...
So did the leaked emails contain any references to deleting this climate data?
Yes. Yes, they did.
In an e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann (1109021312.txt)
<quote>
Mike,
…
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs (Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick) have been after the CRU station data for years. *****If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.***** Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
….
Phil
<end quote>
Reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of actual Science. To have a publicly funded lab intentionally delete the data rather than allow open peer review is beyond suspicious.
Deleting information to avoid a Freedom of Information Act request is also quite illegal under UK law. - greenfyre, on 11/27/2009, -2/+5Yes, follow the money:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/where-th ...
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/# ...
right to the Deniers - Ninh, on 11/26/2009, -36/+39Most of that damage of $9 trillion would be insurance fees to buy coverage against fictional threats.
- Rantus, on 11/27/2009, -3/+6I didn't say that, I was simply stating that our actions have an effect on the environment whether it be locally or globally. The emissions from the tailpipe are the problem, not the heat generated, but the energy released form the process is what propels those emissions into the atmosphere. And as for fail, you didn't address any of my other points, especially about sea levels rising and the acidification of the oceans. Ok then.
- fulibs, on 11/27/2009, -3/+6Wait... the globe is warming?
- amish4play, on 11/26/2009, -2/+5Global warming is making headlines, because it is a popular topic, because taking actions against it are expensive, thus the controversy.
It's an even hotter topic now with the upcoming Copenhagen summit. - bettverboten, on 11/26/2009, -70/+73Global warming is not a true problem.
Anyone see the fraud about this study in the news lately? - 3nder99, on 11/26/2009, -8/+11Well considering the only real source for temperature data refuses to release either the original data or how they changed it for any reason at all, including peer review, while getting caught with emails discussing changing said information and reminding everyone to delete all emails pertaining as to how it was changed (guilty conscience I guess), I can see no reason to view the CRU numbers as reliable.
I mean come on here, they destroyed the data rather than accede to a Freedom of Information request, and considering lots of their money came from the Government they were required to release that information. Ask yourself, why are they hiding the real numbers??? There is absolutely no reason at all except fraud.
When a group of people involved in a politically motivated and highly expensive situation say "Trust Me" you should almost ALWAYS automatically think they are lying. - ismhmr, on 11/27/2009, -6/+9More and more people are recognizing global warming as a scam.. Al Gore will not get get his carbon tax, that's for sure.
- Ghostwo, on 11/27/2009, -3/+6If you think that the CRU controls all the first-hand sources of climate change data (or even a majority of it) you are sadly mistaken. While it's true they do have control over many datasets, it's very foolish to assume that the entire issue was fabricated by a group of 30 researchers. And just because they rigged a few graphs, doesn't mean that everything they've produced was tampered with. It's a disappointment that such an influential group did what they did, but to jump to the conclusion that the entire global warming hypothesis is a hoax is really overreaching.
- inactive, on 11/27/2009, -0/+2It is helpful to know a bit more about CRU. There are only two sources for world-wide historical and current data from ground based thermometers. NASA is one, and CRU is the other.
Great Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU), takes raw climate information from around the world and then after they make modifications to it they release the modified version ONLY to the scientific community. They completely refuse to share the original climate data or the method they use to modify it.
To have publicly funded scientists refuse to allow open peer review in this manner is simply unheard of. Yet CRU repeatedly ignores Freedom of Information requests for the original data.
This news article detailing their evasions predates the whistle blower leaks people are now discussing:
<quote>
We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests
13th August 2009
The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.
The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
Even if World Meteorological Organization agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
In 2007, in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, CRU initially said it didn't have to fulfil the requests because "Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites".
Now it's citing confidentiality agreements with Denmark, Spain, Bahrain and our own Mystic Met Office. Others may exist, CRU says in a statement, but it might have lost them because it moved offices. Or they were made verbally, and nobody at CRU wrote them down.
As for the raw station data,
"We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn't impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.
McIntyre says he doesn't expect any significant surprises after analysing the raw data, but believes that reproducibility is a cornerstone of the scientific principle, and so raw data and methods should be disclosed.
<end quote>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missin ...
So did the leaked emails contain any references to deleting this climate data?
Yes. Yes, they did.
In an e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann (1109021312.txt)
<quote>
Mike,
…
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs (Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick) have been after the CRU station data for years. *****If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.***** Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !
….
Phil
<end quote>
Reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of actual Science. To have a publicly funded lab intentionally delete the data rather than allow open peer review is beyond suspicious.
Deleting information to avoid a Freedom of Information Act request is also quite illegal under UK law. - prakash1234, on 11/26/2009, -4/+6Last time i knew UN passed a resolution to attack Iraq, they are the ponies of UK and US.
This time with IPCC, they are trying to screw healthy GDPs when their GDP is nt growing anymore.
UK we see your evil right through this time. - inactive, on 11/27/2009, -3/+5O.K., lots of argumetns here. Bottom line, no one is 100% for sure about global warming happening or not. What is for sure, is 1:)***** CHINA, and whatever they are chosing to do at this point, and 2:) Worry about our own country, own soil, and become a leading example once again of the way to do things.
Something doesn't have to be proven to motivate people to make sane decisions to cut out harmful economics, like burning harmful fuels (go ahead, stick your face in front of a tail pipe and get a few good whiffs...is that HEALTHY? No.)
SO to re-iterate, and summarize, ***** China, quit bickering, and let's focus on our own countries, and improving them how we best know to, O.K.? :) ♥ -
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
