Global Warming and the Null Hypothesis...

[edthecynic]

We haven't cooled for 100 years and it is likely this flat trend will continue the next 2 years that you expect cooling.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Ah Yes the ADJUSTED data.. I knew this would come up too,

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record.

Further down in the article:

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Source

Poor siting of the old network and adjustments up the wazoo... Along with Urban Heat islands affecting stations.

Notice how quickly the deniers move the goalposts from GLOBAL (see the title of this thread) to the US which is only 2% of the globe. My numbers are accurate for the GLOBE and yours are worthless for the GLOBE.

And the radical Right-wing extremist rag Forbes is hardly a credible source for anything, least of all climate data.

You sited a regional temp, I countered with a system designed not to need adjustment showing rapid decline in hemispheric regions. no movement needed as you had already done the work for me!

Another denier who is "seeing things."

I posted the GLOBAL trend from 2002 to 2014 that showed that not only had no cooling occurred or even warming stopped, but that warming had continued at a much slower rate. So rather than warming having stopped for X amount of years, as the deniers claim, whether you choose 12, 14, 17 or 20 years as various deniers claim, the data shows a GLOBAL warming trend for every one of those periods. A link was even provided to the GLOBAL data that allows you to plug in any length time period and calculate the trend for that period.

The link again:

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

 

[edthecynic]

I'm thinking of changing my board name to Odie Ray. It's more humble and has better camo-value with leftists. Whatcha think Billie Bob?? Lower tropo measurements ARE the surface. And Christy and Spencer NEVER fudged any data. They did discover a small sat correction error in their data processing, but thats why they get a paycheck. UAH data has since been largely in agreement with surface data.

They didn't discover ANYTHING!!!! Spencer and Christy, knowing their data was cooked absolutely REFUSED to check their data when it was found to be so completely out of link with the data from the honest scientists. The honest scientists double checked their data after seeing the Spencer and Christy data and then triple checked it when the deniers claimed that the Spencer and Christy cooked data was the ONLY honest data and the data from all the honest scientists all around the world was manipulated. Finally the honest scientists has enough of the lies of the deniers and the honest scientists invested the time and money and checked the UAH data that Christy and Spencer refused to check. The honest scientists then PUBLISHED a peer reviewed paper exposing the very obvious errors Christy and Spencer employed in cooking the UAH data. Since the paper published by the honest scientists was unassailable, Christy and Spencer were forced kicking and screaming to correct their cooked data which suddenly matched almost exactly the ground station and satellite the deniers condemned for more than a decade. Since the deniers can't deny the honest scientist data any longer, they now claim Spencer and Christy caught and corrected their fudged data on their own.

http://republicans.energycommerce.ho...01/Christy.pdf

Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. Science, 310, 972.
Correcting Temperature Datasets

We agree with C. Mears and F. J. Wentz (“The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature,” 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature
data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments.

All I saw was a science discussion.. Not the political brawl that you imagine existed.. And the correction was made.. All you got is a fictionalized version of events..

That is what happens when you use the left wing revisionist Wikipedia as a source... many of their so called 'facts' lack fact... or are made up entirely.

Another denier seeing things. Wiki was never used!

The link I provided was to the testimony of Christy before the GOP controlled House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Since the part I quoted is so damning to Christy and Spencer, the GOP have pulled the testimony from their site. But you can never remove something from the internet. Below is the testimony as archived by the Wayback Machine.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060728.../108/Hearings/07272006hearing2001/Christy.pdf

 

[edthecynic]

We haven't cooled for 100 years and it is likely this flat trend will continue the next 2 years that you expect cooling.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Ah Yes the ADJUSTED data.. I knew this would come up too,

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record.

Further down in the article:

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Source

Poor siting of the old network and adjustments up the wazoo... Along with Urban Heat islands affecting stations.

Notice how quickly the deniers move the goalposts from GLOBAL (see the title of this thread) to the US which is only 2% of the globe. My numbers are accurate for the GLOBE and yours are worthless for the GLOBE.

And the radical Right-wing extremist rag Forbes is hardly a credible source for anything, least of all climate data.

You sited a regional temp, I countered with a system designed not to need adjustment showing rapid decline in hemispheric regions. no movement needed as you had already done the work for me!

Another denier who is "seeing things."

I posted the GLOBAL trend from 2002 to 2014 that showed that not only had no cooling occurred or even warming stopped, but that warming had continued at a much slower rate. So rather than warming having stopped for X amount of years, as the deniers claim, whether you choose 12, 14, 17 or 20 years as various deniers claim, the data shows a GLOBAL warming trend for every one of those periods. A link was even provided to the GLOBAL data that allows you to plug in any length time period and calculate the trend for that period.

The link again:

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Your MessiahRushie just pontificated that there has been no global warming since 1996. Since 1996 the warming trend has been +.08 C/decade.

Here is the link:

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

 

[flacaltenn]

We haven't cooled for 100 years and it is likely this flat trend will continue the next 2 years that you expect cooling.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Ah Yes the ADJUSTED data.. I knew this would come up too,

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record.

Further down in the article:

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Source

Poor siting of the old network and adjustments up the wazoo... Along with Urban Heat islands affecting stations.

Notice how quickly the deniers move the goalposts from GLOBAL (see the title of this thread) to the US which is only 2% of the globe. My numbers are accurate for the GLOBE and yours are worthless for the GLOBE.

And the radical Right-wing extremist rag Forbes is hardly a credible source for anything, least of all climate data.

You sited a regional temp, I countered with a system designed not to need adjustment showing rapid decline in hemispheric regions. no movement needed as you had already done the work for me!

Another denier who is "seeing things."

I posted the GLOBAL trend from 2002 to 2014 that showed that not only had no cooling occurred or even warming stopped, but that warming had continued at a much slower rate. So rather than warming having stopped for X amount of years, as the deniers claim, whether you choose 12, 14, 17 or 20 years as various deniers claim, the data shows a GLOBAL warming trend for every one of those periods. A link was even provided to the GLOBAL data that allows you to plug in any length time period and calculate the trend for that period.

The link again:

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Your MessiahRushie just pontificated that there has been no global warming since 1996. Since 1996 the warming trend has been +.08 C/decade.

Here is the link:

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

"Rushie" is ESSENTIALLY correct. Because 0.08degC/decade is barely significant. Less than a deg/ CENTURY.. How many more nits U wanna pick? At that "rate"--- if it IS a rate, its hardly a news item --- is it?

By the way, if you produce the damning parts of a Cong. Testimony -- I MIGHT actually read them. But I aint gonna rely on your judgement to risk boring myself to death.....

Any important concepts you wanna share?

 

[IanC]

Ever notice that the US is dismissed as just 2% even though it has relatively good measurements? Northern Russia is 12.5% and has much fewer measurements and the ones they have just suck. Remember the thread that showed one Russian city being used as a rural site to homogenise other sites and to correct for UHI? It had an aluminium smelter and was only considered rural because the original GPS coordinates placed the station in the hydroelectric reservoir built to power the smelter.

Why do automatic homogenisation algorithms catch phantom station moves but seem to miss real ones? Any bets on whether the GPS coordinates have been corrected since the mistake was pointed out?

 

[flacaltenn]

Ever notice that the US is dismissed as just 2% even though it has relatively good measurements? Northern Russia is 12.5% and has much fewer measurements and the ones they have just suck. Remember the thread that showed one Russian city being used as a rural site to homogenise other sites and to correct for UHI? It had an aluminium smelter and was only considered rural because the original GPS coordinates placed the station in the hydroelectric reservoir built to power the smelter.

Why do automatic homogenisation algorithms catch phantom station moves but seem to miss real ones? Any bets on whether the GPS coordinates have been corrected since the mistake was pointed out?

The US is also centrally located in the Northern Hemi, where MOST of the warming is happening. So it is MIGHTY STRANGE, that well measured area in that real estate is not significant.

 

[jc456]

Ever notice that the US is dismissed as just 2% even though it has relatively good measurements? Northern Russia is 12.5% and has much fewer measurements and the ones they have just suck. Remember the thread that showed one Russian city being used as a rural site to homogenise other sites and to correct for UHI? It had an aluminium smelter and was only considered rural because the original GPS coordinates placed the station in the hydroelectric reservoir built to power the smelter.

Why do automatic homogenisation algorithms catch phantom station moves but seem to miss real ones? Any bets on whether the GPS coordinates have been corrected since the mistake was pointed out?

The US is also centrally located in the Northern Hemi, where MOST of the warming is happening. So it is MIGHTY STRANGE, that well measured area in that real estate is not significant.

It's becaue the US stats don't align with the montra! So therefore, it is irrelevant! LOL

 

[edthecynic]

We haven't cooled for 100 years and it is likely this flat trend will continue the next 2 years that you expect cooling.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Ah Yes the ADJUSTED data.. I knew this would come up too,

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record.

Further down in the article:

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Source

Poor siting of the old network and adjustments up the wazoo... Along with Urban Heat islands affecting stations.

Notice how quickly the deniers move the goalposts from GLOBAL (see the title of this thread) to the US which is only 2% of the globe. My numbers are accurate for the GLOBE and yours are worthless for the GLOBE.

And the radical Right-wing extremist rag Forbes is hardly a credible source for anything, least of all climate data.

You sited a regional temp, I countered with a system designed not to need adjustment showing rapid decline in hemispheric regions. no movement needed as you had already done the work for me!

Another denier who is "seeing things."

I posted the GLOBAL trend from 2002 to 2014 that showed that not only had no cooling occurred or even warming stopped, but that warming had continued at a much slower rate. So rather than warming having stopped for X amount of years, as the deniers claim, whether you choose 12, 14, 17 or 20 years as various deniers claim, the data shows a GLOBAL warming trend for every one of those periods. A link was even provided to the GLOBAL data that allows you to plug in any length time period and calculate the trend for that period.

The link again:

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Your MessiahRushie just pontificated that there has been no global warming since 1996. Since 1996 the warming trend has been +.08 C/decade.

Here is the link:

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

"Rushie" is ESSENTIALLY correct. Because 0.08degC/decade is barely significant. Less than a deg/ CENTURY.. How many more nits U wanna pick? At that "rate"--- if it IS a rate, its hardly a news item --- is it?

By the way, if you produce the damning parts of a Cong. Testimony -- I MIGHT actually read them. But I aint gonna rely on your judgement to risk boring myself to death.....

Any important concepts you wanna share?

Notice how whenever deniers give false info, which then gets exaggerated each time it is retold, in this case reduced warming became "no" warming and then became "cooling" in this very thread, but any honest person who corrects the false pontification is "nit picking." Now if I did what the deniers do, and exaggerate the +.08 C/decade to a greater amount and then a greater amount yet again they would attack me for manipulating the data. It would be anything but "nit picking" to the deniers who would completely reject my credibility.

 

[SSDD]

Notice how whenever deniers give false info, which then gets exaggerated each time it is retold, in this case reduced warming became "no" warming and then became "cooling" in this very thread, but any honest person who corrects the false pontification is "nit picking." Now if I did what the deniers do, and exaggerate the +.08 C/decade to a greater amount and then a greater amount yet again they would attack me for manipulating the data. It would be anything but "nit picking" to the deniers who would completely reject my credibility.

First, I find it hilarious that anyone is still claiming warming...at even a reduced rate.....Second, can you tell me what the margin of error is for that .08 per century? ...Can you tell me what the margin of error is for the average global temperature considering that the temperature on earth can vary by as much as 200 degrees across the globe on any given day....120+ equatorial deserts....-120- at the poles...of what use, exactly is an average of that sort of span and what is the margin of error?

 

[edthecynic]

Notice how whenever deniers give false info, which then gets exaggerated each time it is retold, in this case reduced warming became "no" warming and then became "cooling" in this very thread, but any honest person who corrects the false pontification is "nit picking." Now if I did what the deniers do, and exaggerate the +.08 C/decade to a greater amount and then a greater amount yet again they would attack me for manipulating the data. It would be anything but "nit picking" to the deniers who would completely reject my credibility.

First, I find it hilarious that anyone is still claiming warming...at even a reduced rate.....Second, can you tell me what the margin of error is for that .08 per century? ...Can you tell me what the margin of error is for the average global temperature considering that the temperature on earth can vary by as much as 200 degrees across the globe on any given day....120+ equatorial deserts....-120- at the poles...of what use, exactly is an average of that sort of span and what is the margin of error?

I find it hilarious that deniers still don't know how temperature TRENDS are measured by SCIENTISTS.

Scientists do NOT measure an average global temperature to determine whether the globe is warming or cooling, only a denier would think of using a method so stupid. If a 30 or 100 year average temp in the equatorial desert is +120, then the scientists measure the deviation from that 30 or 100 year +120 average and record that as an "ANOMALY" as a + or - value from that average. The same with the poles, if the 30 or 100 year average at the pole is -120, the scientists measure the deviation from that -120 average and record that + or - anomaly. The trend is determined by the over all global + and - numbers. If the total of all the anomalies from all the global stations is a + number then the trend is warmer, a - number means the trend is cooler.

 

[RollingThunder]

More insane and thoroughly debunked denier cult myths and crackpot conspiracy theories, as usual from ol' BoobyBobNutJob.

Only bamboozled denier cult retards are still deluded enough to think that so-called 'climategate' was anything but a phony 'scandal' cooked up by the fossil fuel industry propagandists.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
Union of Concerned Scientists
8/25/11
(excerpts)
The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

* A three-part PennStateUniversity cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
* Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
* The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
* The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
* Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
* Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
* An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas ​

One. The Emails were in a file that was collected due to demands of a court for Freedom Of Information Law violation in Britain.

Completely false.

Two. That file was placed on a public server with public access.

Also false.

Three. It was found by out side sources and copied, the university warned and the contents released as it was on a PUBLIC SERVER.

Ridiculously false.

There was no theft involved.

Idiotically false.

There was no privacy considerations involved.

Insanely false.

You guys really need to get your facts straight!

You really need to get some facts to begin with, BoobyBobNutJob, 'cause right now you're completely ignorant to begin with and then filled with moronic misinformation and lies by the fossil fuel industry propagandists on top of that ignorance. You very obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. The other deniers sometimes manage to get an occasional detail right but you're so confused, every single one of the idiotic claims you made in this post is completely wrong.

Police end 'ClimateGate' inquiry
BBC News
Richard Black - Environment correspondent
18 July 2012
The theft and release of e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit provoked a huge furore over the integrity of climate science. Police say the theft was "sophisticated and orchestrated", and that no-one at the university is implicated.

***

Climategate: was Russian secret service behind email hacking plot?
There was growing speculation on Sunday that hackers working for the Russian secret service were responsible for the theft of controversial emails in the ‘Climategate’ scandal.
The Telegraph
06 Dec 2009
Thousands of emails, from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were first published on a small server in the city of Tomsk in Siberia. Russia, a major oil exporter, may be trying to undermine calls to reduce carbon emissions ahead of the Copenhagen summit on global warming .

***

“Climategate”
Hacked e-mails don't change scientific consensus on global warming.
FactCheck.org
December 10, 2009
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded.

***

Negating "Climategate": Copenhagen Talks and Climate Science Survive Stolen E-Mail Controversy
Release of stolen messages fails to undermine climate negotiations at Copenhagen
Scientific American
Jan 20, 2010
...part of a huge body of data pointing to humanity’s effect on climate, and for most negotiators, the weight of that evidence seems to have crushed any doubt they may have felt in the wake of the 1,000-plus e-mails and computer code stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The theft made headlines as “Climategate” in November, and many private correspondences among scientists became public. In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame. “Heat-trapping properties can be verified by any undergraduate in any lab,” notes climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University. “The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence.” They include melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures.

***

Scientists Respond to "Climategate" E-Mail Controversy
Stolen e-mails and computer code do nothing to change average temperature trends
Scientific American
Dec 4, 2009
With all the "hot air" surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Yet, Arctic sea ice continues to dwindle—as do glaciers across the globe; average temperatures have increased by 0.7 degree Celsius in the past century and the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record; spring has sprung forward, affecting everything from flower blossoms to animal migrations; and the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to rise, reaching 387 parts per million in 2009, a rise of 30 percent since 1750. Nor has the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect changed: CO2 in the atmosphere continues to trap heat that would otherwise slip into space, as was established by Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859. In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause.

 

[jc456]

More insane and thoroughly debunked denier cult myths and crackpot conspiracy theories, as usual from ol' BoobyBobNutJob.

Only bamboozled denier cult retards are still deluded enough to think that so-called 'climategate' was anything but a phony 'scandal' cooked up by the fossil fuel industry propagandists.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
Union of Concerned Scientists
8/25/11
(excerpts)
The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

* A three-part PennStateUniversity cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
* Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
* The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.
* The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
* Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
* Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
* An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas ​

One. The Emails were in a file that was collected due to demands of a court for Freedom Of Information Law violation in Britain.

Completely false.

Two. That file was placed on a public server with public access.

Also false.

Three. It was found by out side sources and copied, the university warned and the contents released as it was on a PUBLIC SERVER.

Ridiculously false.

There was no theft involved.

Idiotically false.

There was no privacy considerations involved.

Insanely false.

You guys really need to get your facts straight!

You really need to get some facts to begin with, BoobyBobNutJob, 'cause right now you're completely ignorant to begin with and then filled with moronic misinformation and lies by the fossil fuel industry propagandists on top of that ignorance. You very obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. The other deniers sometimes manage to get an occasional detail right but you're so confused, every single one of the idiotic claims you made in this post is completely wrong.
Police end 'ClimateGate' inquiry
BBC News
Richard Black - Environment correspondent
18 July 2012
The theft and release of e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit provoked a huge furore over the integrity of climate science. Police say the theft was "sophisticated and orchestrated", and that no-one at the university is implicated.

***

Climategate: was Russian secret service behind email hacking plot?
There was growing speculation on Sunday that hackers working for the Russian secret service were responsible for the theft of controversial emails in the ‘Climategate’ scandal.
The Telegraph
06 Dec 2009
Thousands of emails, from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were first published on a small server in the city of Tomsk in Siberia. Russia, a major oil exporter, may be trying to undermine calls to reduce carbon emissions ahead of the Copenhagen summit on global warming .

***

“Climategate”
Hacked e-mails don't change scientific consensus on global warming.
FactCheck.org
December 10, 2009
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded.

***

Negating "Climategate": Copenhagen Talks and Climate Science Survive Stolen E-Mail Controversy
Release of stolen messages fails to undermine climate negotiations at Copenhagen
Scientific American
Jan 20, 2010
...part of a huge body of data pointing to humanity’s effect on climate, and for most negotiators, the weight of that evidence seems to have crushed any doubt they may have felt in the wake of the 1,000-plus e-mails and computer code stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The theft made headlines as “Climategate” in November, and many private correspondences among scientists became public. In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame. “Heat-trapping properties can be verified by any undergraduate in any lab,” notes climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University. “The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence.” They include melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures.

***

Scientists Respond to "Climategate" E-Mail Controversy
Stolen e-mails and computer code do nothing to change average temperature trends
Scientific American
Dec 4, 2009
With all the "hot air" surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Yet, Arctic sea ice continues to dwindle—as do glaciers across the globe; average temperatures have increased by 0.7 degree Celsius in the past century and the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record; spring has sprung forward, affecting everything from flower blossoms to animal migrations; and the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to rise, reaching 387 parts per million in 2009, a rise of 30 percent since 1750. Nor has the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect changed: CO2 in the atmosphere continues to trap heat that would otherwise slip into space, as was established by Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859. In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . LOL and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Crick]

Good response JC. Clearly indicates your level of comprehension and involvement.

Do YOU have any source supporting Billy Bob's contention that the subject emails were collected in a file to support an FOIA request and were stored on a publicly accessible server? Billy Bob has not received numerous requests for the source of this contention but has yet to post ANYTHING. Does it not strike you as a little odd that such a convoluted claim could be so difficult to find? Does it not strike you as odd that a claim which would undermine the foundations of a major, long-running news story would be so difficult to locate? Does it not strike you as odd how many extreme claims poster Billy Bob has made in short order without providing an iota of supporting evidence?

 

[jc456]

Good response JC. Clearly indicates your level of comprehension and involvement.

Do YOU have any source supporting Billy Bob's contention that the subject emails were collected in a file to support an FOIA request and were stored on a publicly accessible server? Billy Bob has not received numerous requests for the source of this contention but has yet to post ANYTHING. Does it not strike you as a little odd that such a convoluted claim could be so difficult to find? Does it not strike you as odd that a claim which would undermine the foundations of a major, long-running news story would be so difficult to locate? Does it not strike you as odd how many extreme claims poster Billy Bob has made in short order without providing an iota of supporting evidence?

Yeah, I'll get to that as soon as you show me how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is.

 

[RollingThunder]

Good response JC. Clearly indicates your level of comprehension and involvement.

Do YOU have any source supporting Billy Bob's contention that the subject emails were collected in a file to support an FOIA request and were stored on a publicly accessible server? Billy Bob has not received numerous requests for the source of this contention but has yet to post ANYTHING. Does it not strike you as a little odd that such a convoluted claim could be so difficult to find? Does it not strike you as odd that a claim which would undermine the foundations of a major, long-running news story would be so difficult to locate? Does it not strike you as odd how many extreme claims poster Billy Bob has made in short order without providing an iota of supporting evidence?

Yeah, I'll get to that as soon as you show me how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is.

Already happened many times but you're too ignorant about science and too much in brainwashed denial of reality to either accept or comprehend the information.

Here you go again though.

It appears from the paleoclimate data that an increase of about 120ppm in atmospheric CO2 levels, when sustained at that level for a sufficiently long period of time, results in global temperatures about 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, and sea levels approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years; until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.


***

 

[jc456]

Good response JC. Clearly indicates your level of comprehension and involvement.

Do YOU have any source supporting Billy Bob's contention that the subject emails were collected in a file to support an FOIA request and were stored on a publicly accessible server? Billy Bob has not received numerous requests for the source of this contention but has yet to post ANYTHING. Does it not strike you as a little odd that such a convoluted claim could be so difficult to find? Does it not strike you as odd that a claim which would undermine the foundations of a major, long-running news story would be so difficult to locate? Does it not strike you as odd how many extreme claims poster Billy Bob has made in short order without providing an iota of supporting evidence?

Yeah, I'll get to that as soon as you show me how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is.

Already happened many times but you're too ignorant about science and too much in brainwashed denial of reality to either accept or comprehend the information.

Here you go again though.

It appears from the paleoclimate data that an increase of about 120ppm in atmospheric CO2 levels, when sustained at that level for a sufficiently long period of time, results in global temperatures about 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, and sea levels approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years; until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.


***

Well if that is the case, why haven't observed temperatures been that, and why are the ocean levels still the same today. See me thinks you are being fooled. So just post that data that proves that comment and then we can discuss further. See, the words, 'it appears', isn't evidence it is. 'it appears' is a guess. And guessing isn't allowed.

 

[RollingThunder]

Good response JC. Clearly indicates your level of comprehension and involvement.

Do YOU have any source supporting Billy Bob's contention that the subject emails were collected in a file to support an FOIA request and were stored on a publicly accessible server? Billy Bob has not received numerous requests for the source of this contention but has yet to post ANYTHING. Does it not strike you as a little odd that such a convoluted claim could be so difficult to find? Does it not strike you as odd that a claim which would undermine the foundations of a major, long-running news story would be so difficult to locate? Does it not strike you as odd how many extreme claims poster Billy Bob has made in short order without providing an iota of supporting evidence?

Yeah, I'll get to that as soon as you show me how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is.

Already happened many times but you're too ignorant about science and too much in brainwashed denial of reality to either accept or comprehend the information.

Here you go again though.

It appears from the paleoclimate data that an increase of about 120ppm in atmospheric CO2 levels, when sustained at that level for a sufficiently long period of time, results in global temperatures about 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, and sea levels approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years; until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.


***

Well if that is the case, why haven't observed temperatures been that, and why are the ocean levels still the same today.

Because the Earth's climate takes a long time to equilibrate with the higher CO2 levels. The CO2 driven changes don't happen instantly. As the lead author of the study I cited put it: "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels"...

 

[jc456]

Good response JC. Clearly indicates your level of comprehension and involvement.

Do YOU have any source supporting Billy Bob's contention that the subject emails were collected in a file to support an FOIA request and were stored on a publicly accessible server? Billy Bob has not received numerous requests for the source of this contention but has yet to post ANYTHING. Does it not strike you as a little odd that such a convoluted claim could be so difficult to find? Does it not strike you as odd that a claim which would undermine the foundations of a major, long-running news story would be so difficult to locate? Does it not strike you as odd how many extreme claims poster Billy Bob has made in short order without providing an iota of supporting evidence?

Yeah, I'll get to that as soon as you show me how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is.

Already happened many times but you're too ignorant about science and too much in brainwashed denial of reality to either accept or comprehend the information.

Here you go again though.

It appears from the paleoclimate data that an increase of about 120ppm in atmospheric CO2 levels, when sustained at that level for a sufficiently long period of time, results in global temperatures about 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, and sea levels approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years; until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.


***

Well if that is the case, why haven't observed temperatures been that, and why are the ocean levels still the same today.

Because the Earth's climate takes a long time to equilibrate with the higher CO2 levels. The CO2 driven changes don't happen instantly. As the lead author of the study I cited put it: "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels"...

yeah right!!!!! what a boob!

 

[RollingThunder]

Good response JC. Clearly indicates your level of comprehension and involvement.

Do YOU have any source supporting Billy Bob's contention that the subject emails were collected in a file to support an FOIA request and were stored on a publicly accessible server? Billy Bob has not received numerous requests for the source of this contention but has yet to post ANYTHING. Does it not strike you as a little odd that such a convoluted claim could be so difficult to find? Does it not strike you as odd that a claim which would undermine the foundations of a major, long-running news story would be so difficult to locate? Does it not strike you as odd how many extreme claims poster Billy Bob has made in short order without providing an iota of supporting evidence?

Yeah, I'll get to that as soon as you show me how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is.

Already happened many times but you're too ignorant about science and too much in brainwashed denial of reality to either accept or comprehend the information.

Here you go again though.

It appears from the paleoclimate data that an increase of about 120ppm in atmospheric CO2 levels, when sustained at that level for a sufficiently long period of time, results in global temperatures about 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, and sea levels approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years; until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.


***

Well if that is the case, why haven't observed temperatures been that, and why are the ocean levels still the same today.

Because the Earth's climate takes a long time to equilibrate with the higher CO2 levels. The CO2 driven changes don't happen instantly. As the lead author of the study I cited put it: "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels"...

yeah right!!!!! what a boob!

Ah...the usual denier cult response of bewildered ignorance....your speciality....

 

[jc456]

Good response JC. Clearly indicates your level of comprehension and involvement.

Do YOU have any source supporting Billy Bob's contention that the subject emails were collected in a file to support an FOIA request and were stored on a publicly accessible server? Billy Bob has not received numerous requests for the source of this contention but has yet to post ANYTHING. Does it not strike you as a little odd that such a convoluted claim could be so difficult to find? Does it not strike you as odd that a claim which would undermine the foundations of a major, long-running news story would be so difficult to locate? Does it not strike you as odd how many extreme claims poster Billy Bob has made in short order without providing an iota of supporting evidence?

Yeah, I'll get to that as soon as you show me how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is.

Already happened many times but you're too ignorant about science and too much in brainwashed denial of reality to either accept or comprehend the information.

Here you go again though.

It appears from the paleoclimate data that an increase of about 120ppm in atmospheric CO2 levels, when sustained at that level for a sufficiently long period of time, results in global temperatures about 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, and sea levels approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years; until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.


***

Well if that is the case, why haven't observed temperatures been that, and why are the ocean levels still the same today.

Because the Earth's climate takes a long time to equilibrate with the higher CO2 levels. The CO2 driven changes don't happen instantly. As the lead author of the study I cited put it: "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today; and were sustained at those levels"...

yeah right!!!!! what a boob!

Ah...the usual denier cult response of bewildered ignorance....your speciality....

It's all it warranted. so what?