Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:18:00 -
[1]
This is a highly amusing reading.
I don't condone cracking of any kind, as was clearly used to obtain this. But damn... One might argue that more climate research mailboxes needs to be broken into.
|
Ivana Twinkle
Amarr Polytechnique Gallenteenne
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:22:00 -
[2]
I like how they only published part of the stuff they stole(bias anyone?)
|
Alfred Lichtenstein
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:23:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 23/11/2009 12:24:35 I completely condone it (although I can't do it myself) and the people that do this will be caught and sent to jail forever or arrested under the antiterror act! (but are heros)
global warming is how we are going to get out of the money problems!
why you may ask?
Well its very excellent taxation policy!
true or not who cares, its all about the ability to increase taxes!
if you look at the BBC website it doesn't mention the all important contents just the theft! (interesting no?)
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:28:00 -
[4]
Quite a few of those emails are so vage it could be about anything...
|
Peryner
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:31:00 -
[5]
true or not?
honestly, to believe 100% that the way the human race lives isn't haven't an effect on the earth, means you don't believe in scienece based on hard fact.
Lots of what global warming has to do with really does read like plots to tax people and such forth.
but below that there is simple, middle school science behind it. You really have to think science is fake, to think we don't have an impact on the environment. Is it being overblown? maybe. Is it being used for profit? Isn't everything? Is it goign to take 100 years to ruin the earth? I don't really think so, more like 300-500 years.
but it is fake? Oh come on, no one with a brain really thinks Global climate change isn't real.
And I guess at the fear of dragging on, it's simple science. Get a small ecosystem, make it out of a soda bottle. Now put some plants in it. Now make a hole in the side of your little ecosystem, and run a tube, air tight, from the ecosystem, to the tail pipe of your car.
Now run your car for a few hours (if you have the gas to burn :P or find a better way to do this)
watch what happens to the plants.
That's hard science.
|
Rosolo Refili
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 12:47:00 -
[6]
In the UK we hear things like we have 30 days to save the earth etc etc etc and then you get the stupid people that can't be moderate on a subject!
are we screwing the planet over? YES
do we have 30 days to save the earth? YES and a whole lot more!
should we look after the earth? YES
The polar ice on mars is melting as well FYI that bacteria must be pretty complex by building rockets and factories and the such!
I think alf has it really tax tax tax!
and Peryner the key is the word moderation! Don't do anything overly drastic, but we need to change!
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 13:24:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 23/11/2009 13:29:53
Originally by: Rosolo Refili
The polar ice on mars is melting as well FYI that bacteria must be pretty complex by building rockets and factories and the such!
When did anyone claim all climate changes are caused by technology? I think everyone knows, that sun is by a large margin the most important thing to consider that affects climate changes. What is suggested is, that we also have noticable affect on climate and that influence can have significant consequenses to the living conditions on the planet. World isn't going to end, but some people barely make a living now, so they aren't in a position to adapt to those possible changes.
It seems reasonable to suggest, that we need to be able to control that affect as we choose and learn more details how it affects the climate system and about the climate system itself. I'm don't see how leaning on the side of caution is a bad thing, until we do know how it all works and what the real affects will be. Yes, people will take advantage of it and use it push their own aggendas, but that is the norm with everything.
Moderation can be the key, but I'm not keen to start compromising on what the science knows, just to appease some groups. If they are so sure there is an issue with the science, they should fund some research and make a name for themselves by proving it.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 13:45:00 -
[8]
Regular snow having been gone from my area since the late 70s is all a myth, there is still snow, just none that can be seen with the naked eye...
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Rosolo Refili
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 14:45:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Rosolo Refili on 23/11/2009 14:52:47
Originally by: Rosolo Refili
The polar ice on mars is melting as well FYI that bacteria must be pretty complex by building rockets and factories and the such!
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
When did anyone claim all climate changes are caused by technology? I think everyone knows, that sun is by a large margin the most important thing to consider that affects climate changes. What is suggested is, that we also have noticable affect on climate and that influence can have significant consequenses to the living conditions on the planet. World isn't going to end, but some people barely make a living now, so they aren't in a position to adapt to those possible changes.
The climate camps doesn't want to adapt to change they want to stop it!
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
It seems reasonable to suggest, that we need to be able to control that affect as we choose and learn more details how it affects the climate system and about the climate system itself. I'm don't see how leaning on the side of caution is a bad thing, until we do know how it all works and what the real affects will be. Yes, people will take advantage of it and use it push their own aggendas, but that is the norm with everything.
leaning on the side of caution will push even more people in many DEVELOPED/undeveloped countries into fuel poverty WHEN THERE IS NO REAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT! This evidence has not come after billions have been spent trying to prove it by every goverment with some sort of debt in the world! This also comes when these groups will not fund future projects if the results don't say what they want too! (the evidence being us being able to change climate change)
look at that movie the day the world stood still! all tech was instantly turned off all over the globe. At that instant you killed 10Kish people (who need tech to live) and probably 90% of the worlds population in the next year and pushing humanity into a stone age (millions of still births ingrowing toenails killing people)!
if we had spend the research money improving society and put it where companies are into power saving etc then we would be two steps ahead
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Moderation can be the key, but I'm not keen to start compromising on what the science knows, just to appease some groups. If they are so sure there is an issue with the science, they should fund some research and make a name for themselves by proving it.
Science doesn't KNOW and I am a research scientist we make guesses based on the information given! (not in climate change I might add!)
What does science tell us?
the earth is cooling down since 1996 and the polar ice caps were the smallest in 2006 (bigger since!) I have seen the pictures!
|
Alfred Lichtenstein
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 15:13:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Alfred Lichtenstein on 23/11/2009 15:14:17
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Moderation can be the key, but I'm not keen to start compromising on what the science knows, just to appease some groups. If they are so sure there is an issue with the science, they should fund some research and make a name for themselves by proving it.
Why do all these people come from?
PROOF what is scientific proof? where do you come from? we have scientific proof studies the same sort the believers have showing the opposite to these sort of studies!
Problem is the Meme of climate change is addictive and anyone disagreeing with that group are 'in the pocket of exxon' or a bu****e! or shock horror an obama mocker! (which I am nearly as much as I am a mccain mocker)
I hate corporate empires as much as the next man I think banks should all be independant I just think more thought needs putting into what science is by the masses of ignorant people in society (who get to vote!)
|
|
Ademaro Imre
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:27:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Ivana Twinkle I like how they only published part of the stuff they stole(bias anyone?)
So, you oppose the consensus of the hackers?
|
Haraldhardrade
Amarr Pax Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:32:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Haraldhardrade on 23/11/2009 16:33:14 I love how this surface right before the Copenhagen conferance. Kinda like the rumors before the US election saying Michelle Obama had been caught on tape saying racist things.
Lets get things traight : A tiny majority of scientists disagree with the current global warming consensus and a majority of the ones claiming global warming is fraud is the fox news type of ani-intellectuals. Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
|
Ademaro Imre
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:34:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Ademaro Imre on 23/11/2009 16:36:22
Originally by: baltec1 Quite a few of those emails are so vage it could be about anything...
Vague? They go on with explicit conversations about how to avoid fulfilling freedom of information acts! And then once forced, how to make the raw data as difficult to understand as possible, and other links show how the writers are trying to cover up shoddy research.
This is a better link on the hacked emails, follow the links inside.
link
|
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:52:00 -
[14]
I seem to recall reading that climate doom monger models had predicted x, y, and z in terms of the global temp average from the year 2000.
Did any of these models, which politicians use to mug us for money, get it correct? No, the global temp average remained constant.
Reassuring aint it.
Removed. Please keep your EVE signature related to your EVE persona and not that of a real life politician. Navigator |
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 16:58:00 -
[15]
I can't stand the science worshipers. "You dare to question our lord science?!" Last I checked science was all about asking questions. When people stop questioning it's not science anymore, it's dogma. Has anyone ever read the studies researchers paid by the tobacco industry came up with? Ya, scientists can be bought.
While caring for the planet is important I don't believe that the solutions coming out of government are anything but ploys to get more money and power. I believe the entire environmentalist movement has become nothing more than a political/corporate power institution.
We used to hear about pollution, waste, recycling, endangered species, deforestation, acid rain and a bunch of other important environmental issues. But how often are these talked about anymore? I haven't heard the term "acid rain" since I was in middle school. All anybody talks about anymore is climate change. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because the real environmental issues are not profitable? That's what I think. Get people all worked up over an issue that can make governments and corporations worldwide trillions of dollars and ignore the issues that would cost them millions to solve. Forget how bad bio-diesel, mercury filled light bulbs and hybrid car batteries are for the environment. Forget companies dumping waste in our drinking water or chucking it into China. Forget Obama allowing loggers into Alaska's national parks. Pay no attention to Al gores giant estate. Ignore the fact that the people telling you that you are killing the planet do so after stepping off private jets. And whatever you do, DO NOT EXAMINE APOCALYPTIC ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES!
What you must do is demand the government tax you for breathing and ration your heat and power.
Also... does the term "climate change denier" freak anyone else out?
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ademaro Imre Edited by: Ademaro Imre on 23/11/2009 16:36:22
Originally by: baltec1 Quite a few of those emails are so vage it could be about anything...
Vague? They go on with explicit conversations about how to avoid fulfilling freedom of information acts! And then once forced, how to make the raw data as difficult to understand as possible, and other links show how the writers are trying to cover up shoddy research.
Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
That could be read as a rant about any number of things from a badly written artical to a fox news reader getting it wrong again.
The fact is that we canÆt account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canÆt. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Climate models are forever being complained about for their unpradictability. No two models are ever the same hence why they must run them over and over again to get a general idea of what is going to happen in 10, 20, 30 years from now. We do indeed need more data but this little snippit does not say all models are worthless.
|
Rosolo Refili
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 17:45:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Rosolo Refili on 23/11/2009 17:52:09
Originally by: Haraldhardrade Edited by: Haraldhardrade on 23/11/2009 16:33:14 I love how this surface right before the Copenhagen conferance. Kinda like the rumors before the US election saying Michelle Obama had been caught on tape saying racist things.
yeah or the bit about barack obama's campaign funds coming from millions of $10 donations that was a lie they were mostly from a few billionaires! OOPS maybe both sides play hard, and Obama just like Mccain was some rich dudes plaything!
Originally by: Haraldhardrade With an S added
Lets get things straight : A tiny majority of scientists disagree with the current global warming consensus and a majority of the ones claiming global warming is fraud is the fox news type of ani-intellectuals.
oh no I hate fox news but I think that climate change is a big con for tax grab I must be an ani-intellectual (real spelling has a T in very intermalecual!) quickly I must agree or I will not be an intellectual!
scientists have something called peer review look it up it's how it should work and these guys have tried to rubbish it!
linkage
|
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 18:52:00 -
[18]
Go Russian hax0rz!!!11
It is too early to say whether the Russian government sponsored the recent hacking of University of East Anglia Hadley CRU (Climatic Research Unit) computers or not.
|
JeremyCricket
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 20:34:00 -
[19]
The important thing to remember is that there is no consensus on climate change.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 21:43:00 -
[20]
I remember seeing the news on the hacking and thinking some interesting reading was coming up soon
looks like I won't be disappointed
|
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:05:00 -
[21]
Originally by: JeremyCricket The important thing to remember is that there is no consensus on climate change.
No... the important thing to remember is that you can buy studies to prove anything you want.
|
Feilamya
Pelennor Swarm THE KLINGONS
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 22:11:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ivana Twinkle I like how they only published part of the stuff they stole(bias anyone?)
Biased or not, releasing only part of the stuff is the way to go, if they want to be effective.
1. Release only part of the stuff 2. Wait for the researchers to respond, try to defend themselves, throw **** at each other and get entangled in contradictions 3. Release more stuff 4. if(want more lulz) goto 2 5. ??? 6. No profit, because repeating steps 2 and 3 is more fun
Here is an example of this strategy at work: http://blog.brokep.com/2009/10/10/follow-up-in-breinfail/
|
Northern Fall
Minmatar British Legion
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:04:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Razin Go Russian hax0rz!!!11
It is too early to say whether the Russian government sponsored the recent hacking of University of East Anglia Hadley CRU (Climatic Research Unit) computers or not.
Oh, those Russians.
|
Drunk Driver
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.11.23 23:27:00 -
[24]
I think global warming is real because, er, because I'm warm.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 04:20:00 -
[25]
You know what kind of world this is and what kind of people are running it when hackers have to do the job that MI6 or the FBI should have done a long time ago.
Considering that these "scientists" openly supported a global fraud, they should all be brought up on charges.
|
Arron S
Gallente Final Conflict UK Warped Aggression
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 05:26:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Arron S on 24/11/2009 05:27:24 http://www.google.com/trends?q=Global+Warming+
Global Warming is so 2007
Google Trends says it all
|
Lithalnas
Amarr The Really Awesome Players
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 05:41:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer You know what kind of world this is and what kind of people are running it when hackers have to do the job that MI6 or the FBI should have done a long time ago.
Considering that these "scientists" openly supported a global fraud, they should all be brought up on charges.
I think that would be hard to do, the reasoning behind this is two fold. First is that any charge in the field of science stems directly from financial loss or injury. A company or individual would have to prove that a report made by this specific group of individuals cost them money or impacted their health. If a bridge falls down then the case is cut and dry, person got hurt due to falsified scientific data. But in this case they would have to argue that the laws stemming from, or the slander posed by the reports have impacted their business. A difficult thing to do at the best of times.
The second is that these emails are in-admissible in court, this is because the appearance is that they were attained illegal. This is somewhat regardless of weather the Russians were given the information by an insider or was hacked out. These documents will never see a courtroom. The only way to get something on the subject into the courtroom is to sponsor a new report based upon the unedited data and then give it to the judge. The judge then makes a decision based purely on the comparative study and might just might order the mails handed over in a more legal manner to see if there was active fraud on the part of the global warming group. -------------
|
Kalam Orlong
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 08:27:00 -
[28]
Newtongate
If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of NewtonÆs private correspondence were compiled and published.
When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters û supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons û suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
But perhaps the most damaging revelations are those concerning the way these math nerd scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. They suggest dubious practices such as:
Conspiring to avoid public scrutiny:
There is nothing which I desire to avoid in matters of philosophy more then contentions, nor any kind of contention more then one in print: & therefore I gladly embrace your proposal of a private correspondence. WhatÆs done before many witnesses is seldom without some further concern then that for truth: but what passes between friends in private usually deserve ye name of consultation rather then contest, & so I hope it will prove between you & me.
Newton to Hooke, 5 February 1676
Insulting dissenting scientists and equating them with holocaust deniers:
[Hooks Considerations] consist in ascribing an hypothesis to me which is not mine; in asserting an hypothesis which as to ye principal parts of it is not against me; in granting the greatest part of my discourse if explicated by that hypothesis; & in denying some things the truth of which would have appeared by an experimental examination.
Newton to Oldenburg, 11 June 1672
Manipulation of evidence:
I wrote to you on Tuesday that the last leafe of the papers you sent me should be altered because it refers to a manuscript in my private custody & not yet upon record.
Newton to Keill, May 15 1674
Knowingly publishing scientific fraud:
You need not give yourself the trouble of examining all the calculations of the Scholium. Such errors as do not depend upon wrong reasoning can be of no great consequence & may be corrected by the reader.
Newton to Cotes June 15 1710
Suppression of evidence:
Mr. Raphson has printed off four or five sheets of his History of Fluxions, but being shewÆd Sr. Is. Newton (who, it seems, would rather have them write against him, than have a piece done in that manner in his favour), he got a Stop put to it, for some time at least.
Jones to Cotes, 17 September 1711
Abusing the peer review system:
àonly the Germans and French have in a violent manner attackÆd the Philosophy of Sr. Is. Newton, and seem resolved to stand by Cartes; Mr. Keil, as a person concerned, has undertaken to answer and defend some things, as Dr. Friend, and Dr. Mead, does (in their way) the rest: I would have sent you ye whole controversy, was not I sure that you know, those only are most capable of objecting against his writings, that least understand them; however, in a little time, youÆll see some of these in ye Philos. Transact.
Jones to Cotes, October 25 1711
Insulting their critics:
The controversy concerning Sr. IsaacÆs Philosophy is a piece of news that I had not heard of unless MuysÆs late book be meant. I think that Philosophy needs no de
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:39:00 -
[29]
To the Americans complaining about the tax rises, why don't you cut that massive defence budget of yours? Plant trees, not landmines
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Rosolo Refili
|
Posted - 2009.11.24 10:47:00 -
[30]
Another person totally ignorant of science!
Newtonian physics or classical mechanics have been disproved already and only now really serve as a dummies guide for approximation.
Linkage
so unless its relatively slow and relatively large then it doesn't work!
bottom line is here is some juicy evidence of what should be fraud by a goverment sponsored research group spending MILLIONS of British tax payers pounds and helping prove (laughably) the goverments stance on climate change, and their results were faked!
it's like buying snake oil from a travelling 'doctor' costing you half your income a month! thats the story here!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |