Eat that GW believers!

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Or check out this Google page:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp& ... 1b6fd2ba3e

Only 54,000 hits so far.

Wait 24 hours and I expect to see near a million.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Well, downloading the stuff and then changing the text in a couple of emails is not out of the question. Knowing not to chance McIntyres emails is pretty obvious. All I am saying is that this is going to get interesting.

In support of this, here was an interesting comment in the CA blog.

After looking at the files, I agree with Michael. All the file dates in the documents folder have the original dates for the files. This is good for obtaining the data. However, all the email files in the mail folder have had their dates changed artificially to Jan 1, 2009 at 00:00:00. This seems like it was done to hide alterations to some of the files. Be careful reposting the emails.

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

seedload wrote:Well, downloading the stuff and then changing the text in a couple of emails is not out of the question. Knowing not to chance McIntyres emails is pretty obvious. All I am saying is that this is going to get interesting.
Yep. Very interesting.

If the stuff is 100% there has to be panic in AGW city.

The e-mail I quoted has a 1999 date.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

jnaujok
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:19 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Contact:

Post by jnaujok »

I've now seen at least two other people posting on threads who have confirmed that their unaltered emails appear in the stream as well, including one who had agreed to keep his conversation "private" and was thus surprised to see it sent to at least two other parties in this stream of emails.

If this is a hoax, then it's one of the best done hoaxes I've ever seen.

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

jnaujok wrote:
I've now seen at least two other people posting on threads who have confirmed that their unaltered emails appear in the stream as well, including one who had agreed to keep his conversation "private" and was thus surprised to see it sent to at least two other parties in this stream of emails.

If this is a hoax, then it's one of the best done hoaxes I've ever seen.
This has been out now for about 12 hours. More verifications will be coming no doubt in the next few days.

I normally stay up at night and sleep days. Programmers hours. I'm going to be watching this for the next 6 to 10 hours. The coffee will be double double (double is my normal).

The most fun I have had in a very long time.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

seedload wrote:For the record, this doesn't read like something someone would actually write,

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

It's not real. The author is talking to people who would know what Mikes Nature trick was if it was real, yet the author then goes on to explain what the trick actually was - in detail. Sorry, seems like consiracy theories couched as natural conversation to me.

I am skeptical.
That one should be easy to verify. Get the data. Run the analysis with and without the additions. See if you get a match.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I have added some stuff to my verification link above. click it.

Jones the Hadley director has confirmed that the stuff was from them.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Jccarlton
Posts: 1747
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Southern Ct

Post by Jccarlton »

MSimon wrote:I have added some stuff to my verification link above. click it.

Jones the Hadley director has confirmed that the stuff was from them.
I think AGW has just met it's Rubicon. it's one thing when fraud can be suspected. It's quite another when it can be proven. All the talk about consensus and peer review and careful science has just been blasted by the perpetrators own words. The only thing that i worry about is that AGW may take honest and true science with it.

pbelter
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Post by pbelter »

seedload wrote:For the record, this doesn't read like something someone would actually write,

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

It's not real. The author is talking to people who would know what Mikes Nature trick was if it was real, yet the author then goes on to explain what the trick actually was - in detail. Sorry, seems like consiracy theories couched as natural conversation to me.

I am skeptical.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/scien ... ml?_r=2&hp

Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail was real.
Heh, the religion is going to loose a few devotees now, but I bet the core will remain. After all who cares about facts?
It was one of the most prominent Left wing politicians, comrade Stalin himself who said: " Facts are against us? The worse for the facts"

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

seedload wrote:Well, downloading the stuff and then changing the text in a couple of emails is not out of the question. Knowing not to chance McIntyres emails is pretty obvious. All I am saying is that this is going to get interesting.

In support of this, here was an interesting comment in the CA blog.

After looking at the files, I agree with Michael. All the file dates in the documents folder have the original dates for the files. This is good for obtaining the data. However, all the email files in the mail folder have had their dates changed artificially to Jan 1, 2009 at 00:00:00. This seems like it was done to hide alterations to some of the files. Be careful reposting the emails.
Hmmm? Mine don't. Are we talking about the same folder?

e.g.
From: "Jonathan T. Overpeck" <jto@ngdc.noaa.gov>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: climate of the last millennia...
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 12:17:24 -0700
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, ray bradley <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>, mann@snow.geo.umass.edu

Hi Phil - thanks for your detailed reply to my email. I look forward to
working with you and the rest of the gang to really improve the state of
paleo contributions to the detection/attribution issue. The earlier we get
a small group together, the better, so I suggest we try to take you up on
the AMS add-on idea. It would be ideal to have a 1 to 1.5day mtg in Boulder
since we have many of the needed perspectives (ice core, coral, seds, data,
etc) here. What would be the best dates for you (and Keith - I'm hoping
he'll be up for this too). We can find the extra $$ to get folks to Boulder
and have a quality time (do you ski?).

Once we set the dates with you (PLEASE SEND FAVORED DATES), Mike and Ray,
we can set the agenda. The main thing is that it would set the stage for
the extra degree of data sharing we'll need before the planned Santorini
mtg (still no dates - please bug Jean-Claude!!). Sound ok?

As for the data from your paper, I'd like to get them up with the data from
the other studies on the WDC www site asap. (JUST LET ME KNOW HOW!) The
White House is interested in knowing the state-of-the-art, and if we can
get everything together at one www site (including data and figs), I think
I can get some needed visibility for the paleo perspective. You probably
know this, but Henry Pollack's Borehole view of things (similar conclusions
to the other recent papers) is about to appear in Science. Although each
proxy and method does have it's limitations and biases, the multiproxy view
is compelling with regard to the patterns of temp change over the past
several centuries. The IPCC next time around should be much stronger than
last on the paleo side of things (although still not as good as it can
get!).
It's really pretty amazing to see such naked prostitution of science to an agenda.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

alexjrgreen wrote:Methane causes warming, and is broken down after a few years in the environment to produce carbon dioxide. It also has a known positive feedback effect with rising temperature through the release of methane from rotted material under the permafrost and from clathrates under the ocean. In the past this has resulted in a rapid 8C rise in global temperatures that lasts for a few hundred years.

Much more interesting, therefore, is the Vostok methane record: Trends in Atmospheric Methane

A number of human activities produce methane, notably farming using domesticated species.

Carbon dioxide capture is now both technically possible and economically viable, if we need to use it. Methane capture is much more urgent.
Methane capture does make more sense than CO2 emissions limiting, but the predictions for methane rise haven't materialized.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/10/t ... -not-awake

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

seedload wrote:I am skeptical.
How dare you defy the consensus!

alexjrgreen
Posts: 815
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: UK

Post by alexjrgreen »

TallDave wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Methane causes warming, and is broken down after a few years in the environment to produce carbon dioxide. It also has a known positive feedback effect with rising temperature through the release of methane from rotted material under the permafrost and from clathrates under the ocean. In the past this has resulted in a rapid 8C rise in global temperatures that lasts for a few hundred years.

Much more interesting, therefore, is the Vostok methane record: Trends in Atmospheric Methane

A number of human activities produce methane, notably farming using domesticated species.

Carbon dioxide capture is now both technically possible and economically viable, if we need to use it. Methane capture is much more urgent.
Methane capture does make more sense than CO2 emissions limiting, but the predictions for methane rise haven't materialized.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/10/t ... -not-awake
It's a little early to make that claim, but suppose, for the sake of argument, that atmospheric methane levels have stabilized at a new level of 1800 parts per billion by volume.

At more than double the 400-800 ppbv levels seen over the past 400,000 years, that still represents a significant source of warming to set against all the other effects regularly discussed here.
Ars artis est celare artem.

pfrit
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm

Post by pfrit »

alexjrgreen wrote:
TallDave wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:Methane causes warming, and is broken down after a few years in the environment to produce carbon dioxide. It also has a known positive feedback effect with rising temperature through the release of methane from rotted material under the permafrost and from clathrates under the ocean. In the past this has resulted in a rapid 8C rise in global temperatures that lasts for a few hundred years.

Much more interesting, therefore, is the Vostok methane record: Trends in Atmospheric Methane

A number of human activities produce methane, notably farming using domesticated species.

Carbon dioxide capture is now both technically possible and economically viable, if we need to use it. Methane capture is much more urgent.
Methane capture does make more sense than CO2 emissions limiting, but the predictions for methane rise haven't materialized.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/10/t ... -not-awake
It's a little early to make that claim, but suppose, for the sake of argument, that atmospheric methane levels have stabilized at a new level of 1800 parts per billion by volume.

At more than double the 400-800 ppbv levels seen over the past 400,000 years, that still represents a significant source of warming to set against all the other effects regularly discussed here.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't CO2 only "capture" certain wavelengths of IR radiation? Isn't it already capturing all of radiation at those wavelengths?
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

Post Reply