f#%&ing hackers and climate change emails
 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...in;contentBody

what does everyone think?

Nothing's 100%. I'm sure that there are some people that want to disagree with the "norm", to say that this climate shit is a little overblown. That's just how life works. Of course, there are a lot of people who stand to lose a lot of money if that turns out to be true, so falsification and fudged numbers are probably floating all around.

I only believe in what I can see myself. For me, the summers have been hotter and the winters have been colder. It could be that that's just how the planet works or that shit is changing. I don't know, I wouldn't be old enough to experience a global climate shift.

Besides, regular recordings on climate and temperature were only really started a little bit before the industrial revolution. It's been shown that that skewed numbers a bit. That and we don't know the big picture of what happened before then.

This is with a semester of meteorology under my belt, by the way. Saying that the climate is changing really validates the AMS and NOAA, doesn't it? CURIOUS?

i've always been 50-50 on the issue of global warming. massachusetts only had 2 weeks of summer with the temp going at 90 degrees or over last season. i have to make this short but in my gut intuition this whole story with the email hacking is an elaborate hoax in an attempt to manipulate the public's opinion on the issue of global warming. The hoax was possibly manufactured by the oil industry for political and corporate purposes.

Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign"
Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:54pm EST

(SolveClimate) Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

http://www.reuters.com/article/inter...5AO4TW20091125

NO!! Do you think so?!

You mean HOPEnhagen.

the first time i read this story some of the crazy commentators were saying shit about how obama was gonna hand the world over to the illuminati or some shit at copenhagen.

:O

GEGGY IS A SPAMMER. ban him please

This is the history of the planet for the past 300 million years. Maybe this will help the argument lol

Permian -
(only post-Cambrian period other than current known to have ice ages)
O2 : 120% pre-ndustrial
CO2 : 300% pre-industrial
temp+2

(Damn near everything on Earth fuckin dies)

Triassic
(dinosaurs kick proto-mammals asses and conquer planet)
(first true-mammals appear)
O2 : 80% pre-industrial
CO2 :600% pre-industrial
temp +3

Jurassic
O2 : 130% current level
CO2 :700% current level
temp +3

Cretaceous
(Grass, birds and flowers appear)
O2 : 150% pre-industrial
CO2 : 600% pre-industrial
temp +4

(big fuckin rock hits Mexico, Dinosaurs die)

Paleogene
(bigass mammals)
(Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum)
O2 : 130% pre-industrial
CO2 : 200% pre-industrial
Temp +4


Neogene - Holocene : Current period
(ice ages)
O2 : 108% pre-industrial
CO2 : 100% pre-industrial
Temp +0

(Last Ice Age)

Now-
O2 - 100% pre-industrial?
CO2 - 123% Pre-Industrial
Temp +debated

What are those percentages even based off of?

a base-10 number system derived from the arabs

The base percentage is based off of pre-industrial levels from around 1750 taken from ice cores in Antarctica. How they got the information for the C02 and O2 levels for millions of years ago is based upon isotopes in rocks.

Either way, the Triassic had to suck balls.

I've taken the liberty of modifying your argument to make it easier to understand:

Does Temp +0 mean the temp is at norm or didn't change? WTF random equation guy?

I guess it's to denote relativity.

yah pretty much 30. zero means 0 deviance from todays level.

WHICH IS IT, I'M DYING TO KNOW.

[quote=Geggy;660592]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...in;contentBody

what does everyone think?[/QUOTEi think you are a rapist

i didn't come up with the figures. just give the planet some fuckin advil!

I can accept the thought of political agendas and fear tactics playing a role in the climate debate, but I also whole-heartedly endorse every step and measure taken to reduce emisions and green house gases and whatnot.

I mean, if we can find alternatives to digging up vast amounts of oil and burning it and maybe encourage people to take the bus more often, I don't see how that could hurt.

Just seeing how large percentage of a typical city that's covered by roads and parking lots and highways and asphalt, and imagining how nice it would have been with parks and pedestrian areas instead, makes you wanna ban cars already

:|

Hahaha my old roomate had a poster like that back in the early 90s

THAT IS THE REASON DR MANHATTAN GETS DEPRESSED ;_;

I don't think you're going to change anyone's opinion about Al Gore with that one.

I haven't seen either of those movies, so I have to ask: What was Gore trying to do with that sequence? Was he trying to portray it as actuall film footage of it happening or say "this is what it looks like"?

As for the whole Climate Change debate (global warming is a bad name), I'd always suspected the immediate effects and dangers were being a little exaggerated and over dramatized, but I think the science that we are indeed having some negative effects on the atmoshpere is sound and should be addressed.

Who gives a flying fuck that he used a computer generated image to show something that would cost a shitload to film in person. You should care more about this dumbass not practicing any of what he preaches.

until you want to drive somewhere on your own schedule without being on a germ infected bus with random people on someone else's schedule. And I'm pretty sure buses pollute alot so if you had ever person needing a bus ride you'd need alot more buses. Before you call for cars to be banned how about you give away yours and have fun riding ur bike to work everyday. We should really just ban India and China from existing because they produce more green house gases and have no intention of stopping or reducing those amounts then the US will ever produce. You can't stop global warming if two of the largest populations in the world are basically in their industrial age and have no intention of slowing down so stop wasting your fucking time crying for the planet and watsing ru time thinking bout global warming and think realistically and act locally if you really care to see an imporvment for ur children. I think the lack of sidewalks to even make pedistrian travel possible and safe is a bigger immediate problem for american citizens then fucking global warming.

a lot of buses run on natural gases or use other energy saving techniques :O

if there were less streets you wouldnt really need sidewalks cause people wouldn't have to worry about getting hit by cars all the time. They could have like dirt paths and shit surrounded by bushes and trees :O

I was unaware of that fact concerning buses. Your second point is unrealistic in my opinion. cars are one of the biggest developments to modern society and even if we make them alot more environmentally friendly they will still be used by millions of people for everyday use and the sidewalk issue will still need to be addressed. I hear California is addressing the sidewalk issue better then any other state.

Well my second opinion is relevant because it was in response to your criticism of blasted child's idea -- wanting to ban cars because the city would be nicer with parks instead of streets -- stating that we would need sidewalks so people wouldn't get hit by cars.

Horses. I'd love to ride a horse to work.

Ant10708, I'm touched by your sincere devotion to the construction of more sidewalks. I wish you and your community the best of luck when addressing this issue.

Must watch. BY ONE OF THE SCIENCE CONSPIRATORS

All I know s that if climate change is bullshit how come the water in Jamaica bay comes right up to my door when 5 years ago it was over 2000' away?

Sounds like it's out to get you. Have you done anything to water in the past five years to make it angry?

Stop adding to it with your warm pee!

The other day I walked out on the deck to see a fish swimming out from under my car.

Isn't this all that really matters for evidence?



And if that frozen methane escapes from the ocean floor (wherever the hell it is) it's going to be frikkin apocalyptic.

You're assuming the second photo is the norm.

Its a fucking picture, not a graph. It doesn't matter whether there was a constant melting over 30 years or if magically the ice cap doubled in size for just the three years that is represented there. Its worthless without data. The only thing he is assuming is that you can find or know the data yourself.

the northwest passage was impossible to navigate through atleast since the days of Cortez. that's over 450 years.

Although strangely Antarctica is growing.

Either way, I'd figure pumping out greenhouse gasses ain't good

Antarctica is growing? Is it really?

Some parts of it are, but by volume it is actually losing ice rapidly. I did a search to double check, and with "Antarctica expanding" as a search all I got was fox news, glenn beck and other climate change denier sites. I couldn't find one scientific paper by a science journal anywhere and not one testimony or referance to or from a scientist on flat antacrtica expansion. There are little blurbs that mention the growth, but the main focus of the paper is about the rapid lost of tens of cubic miles of ice per year.

maybe when the ice breaks apart and floats away they count that as growth.