Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Batch of Leaked Climate Emails

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the is-this-a-new-gate-or-can-we-use-the-old-gate dept.

Communications 585

New submitter kenboldt writes "Someone going by the alias 'foia' has dropped a link to a zip file containing thousands more emails similar to those released in 2009. There are apparently many more which are locked behind a password, presumably waiting to be released at some time in the future." The University of East Anglia has released a brief statement indicating that the emails were probably obtained during the 2009 breach and held back until now as "a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy."

cancel ×

585 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yeah, sure. (-1, Troll)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140894)

"a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy."

No, it's just more confirmation that these guys don't know why things are but are far more concerned that the number deliver the right message. Anything for the religion of Global Warming.

Re:Yeah, sure. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140930)

Right, because last time around, it turned out that there was a big conspiracy and lots of people got fired and no one believes in global warming any more.

oh, wait, that's exactly what didn't happen.

Re:Yeah, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140956)

Enough to shift public opinion, which is all you can ask for.

Re:Yeah, sure. (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140970)

No it didn't

Re:Yeah, sure. (5, Informative)

RebelWithoutAClue (578771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141016)

Re:Yeah, sure. (4, Insightful)

x6060 (672364) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141380)

Stop muddling this argument with verifiable facts. Global Warming activists hate it when you show them facts.

Re:Yeah, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141438)

What is a "Global Warming activist"?

Re:Yeah, sure. (1)

bschorr (1316501) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141416)

"Americans' sense that Global Warming is the least of their worries right now continues to rise..."

Re:Yes it is! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141054)

what I dont get is why you rely on a biased source to tell you "nothing here" instead of taking an objective look at the gift given to you.

In other words - go read the fucking emails and then try to claim they are taken out of context or whatever other excuse you have. These guys are dirty and they have been caught with their pants down. How can you ignore this. What are you afraid of?

If they were secret Bush emails, you would be all over it.

Re:Yes it is! (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141090)

The issue is that a set of emails can not counter all the other evidence and research. If I falsify tests on gravity and write some emails about it, does this mean that gravity is not a universal constant? The mentality of people who pounce on these emails as proof that "global warming" isn't real are the same ones that used snow storms as proof. They totally miss the overall picture.

Re:Yes it is! (-1, Troll)

DrInequality (521068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141212)

Just as the "scientists" who wrote the emails in the first place missed the point of science?

Re:Yes it is! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141374)

Ooooh, burn! I bet there is some substantial proof behind this comment that he's just waiting to reveal. We await your insider knowledge.

Scientists being jerks isn't anything new, by the way.

Re:Yes it is! (5, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141304)

Look moron, there's no grant money for disproving gravity yet there's plenty enough for the other way around. And you gravity believers try to equate us to nazi sympathizers by calling us gravity deniers. We're gravity skeptics, and we're just waiting for conclusive proof to make a decision. Most gravitymongering hype is bullshit and it's all just being pushed by media profiting off fear and politicians profiting off pro-gravity legislation. So until we hear from neutral sources unanimously coming to a consensus, we will rationally remain in doubt.

Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141360)

Because everyone knows those scientists are living in lavish mansions while the AGW deniers are living in straw huts. Moron.

Re:Yes it is! (5, Insightful)

bschorr (1316501) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141446)

There's just as much, if not more, grant money for people who prove climate change ISN'T man made. You don't think the oil companies aren't at the head of a VERY long line of corporations that would pay handsomely to any scientific group that could actually prove that?

There's no need to falsify info proving global warming if it would be easier to produce evidence DISproving it. Certainly not for financial reasons.

Re:Yes it is! (3, Insightful)

nitrowing (887519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141534)

Except the oil companies are making a fortune out of 'Global Warming' by increasing their prices and governments are making more from 'Green Taxes'?

Re:Yes it is! (3, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141552)

There's just as much, if not more, grant money for people who prove climate change ISN'T man made.

Where?

You don't think the oil companies aren't at the head of a VERY long line of corporations that would pay handsomely to any scientific group that could actually prove that?

Oil companies grew to love 'Global Warmnig' when they realised it makes oil more attractive than coal.

After all, that's why Margaret Thatcher pushed it in the first place; it was another stick to beat the coal mining unions with.

Re:Yes it is! (2)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141466)

Look moron, there's no grant money for disproving gravity yet there's plenty enough for the other way around. And you gravity believers try to equate us to nazi sympathizers by calling us gravity deniers. We're gravity skeptics, and we're just waiting for conclusive proof to make a decision. Most gravitymongering hype is bullshit and it's all just being pushed by media profiting off fear and politicians profiting off pro-gravity legislation. So until we hear from neutral sources unanimously coming to a consensus, we will rationally remain in doubt.

Wait, now I'm confused - you are still using 'gravity' as a replacement for 'climate change', right?

Given that there are morons that don't believe in relativity [conservapedia.com] it's not impossible that a thread about climate change has attracted actual gravity deniers.

Re:Yes it is! (1)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141514)

Being rationally in doubt is good. But it will be hard to prove GW.

So, in the mean time, are you

A: driving a reasonably fuel efficient car and otherwise trying to lighten your impact or

B: driving a toy hauler truck or suburban to get yourself ( and only yourself ) back and forth to work saying "bunch of hippy GW , hope they enjoy my extra smog"?

Re:Yes it is! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141320)

Are you stuck on stupid? Clearly your ideology is defeating your common sense.

the fucking emails reveal all sorts of dirt. These are the same people that crafted the very "evidence" you now cite.

It is a cult. Only someone brainwashed would ignore this.

Re:Yes it is! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141406)

Until we have studied the climate for 10,000 years, there is no way we can draw a parallel between our greenhouse emissions and global warming. To think that we in the short span of a few hundred years are actually having an effect on global climate is ludicrous at best. How many thousands of years have whole forests burned due to natural causes? My guess would be enough to release way more greenhouse gas than our burning of fossil fuels.
 
Climate shifts, we know this from study of ice cores from the poles. Maybe we are in one of those times where warming occurs naturally until the cycle of ice age comes back around. Of course no one takes that into account. They merely look at data we have collected over the course of a few hundred years and jump to a conclusion. When what needs to be done is to look in terms of thousands of years.

Re:Yes it is! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141450)

The issue is that a set of emails can not counter all the other evidence and research. If I falsify tests on gravity and write some emails about it, does this mean that gravity is not a universal constant?

Erm. To be pedantic: No, it's not a universal constant. It's a fundamental force... totally different!

Re:Yes it is! (1, Insightful)

Petron (1771156) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141544)

If I falsify tests on gravity, and claim that gravity is increasing due to pollution, and claim that the increase will kill all life on Earth... Then help start a whole new industry (that I have an invested interest in) combat the issue... then emails leak where I talk about falsify the tests....

Nobody would argue the existence gravity... but people may be a tad upset that the trusted scientific base fudged figures for personal reasons.

No, they aren't (3, Insightful)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141340)

These guys are dirty and they have been caught with their pants down.

No, they aren't, and no, they haven't.

And no, I'm not wasting my time with this because like most intelligent adults I already understand that having doubts is what people who are right do. Having doubts is scientifically valid. It's how science gets done, not religion.

Having no doubts and exuding false confidence is what people who are wrong do all the time.

In other words, shove those fucking emails up your ass. They do not mean what you desperately wish they mean. Global warming is a done discussion. Governments and corporations are already moving to adapt -- except for a few parasites like the Koch brothers (who are funding much of the anti-science "research" that you are lapping up so eagerly), who simply need to be pried off our nation's neck and burned like the blood-ticks that they are.

Re:No, they aren't (5, Informative)

RogueLeaderX (845092) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141400)

Global warming is a done discussion. Governments and corporations are already moving to adapt -- except for a few parasites like the Koch brothers (who are funding much of the anti-science "research" that you are lapping up so eagerly), who simply need to be pried off our nation's neck and burned like the blood-ticks that they are.

Except the Koch brothers latest efforts were less than fruitful: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process [berkeleyearth.org]

Re:Yes it is! (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141364)

How can you ignore this. What are you afraid of?

I'm afraid of you and your histrionic tactics and misinformation, Mister Beck.

Re:Yes it is! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141422)

It wouldn't help the cause.

Re:Yeah, sure. (5, Informative)

Layzej (1976930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141014)

Climate scientists are providing context to the leaked emails here: http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=9931 [realclimate.org]

Re:Yeah, sure. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141392)

providing context

Your weasel word detector should have gone off right there.

Real Climate = Mann's spin control website (-1, Flamebait)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141398)

Seriously provide context from a noted fraudster ?

Re:Real Climate = Mann's spin control website (5, Insightful)

hexghost (444585) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141526)

Your source proving the fraud accusation?

Last I checked, Mann had been cleared by not one, not two, at least t-h-r-e-e different boards of inquiry.

Re:Yeah, sure. (4, Funny)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141050)

No, it's just more confirmation that these guys don't know why things are but are far more concerned that the number deliver the right message.

Mister Limbaugh, could you please restate that in English?

Re:Yeah, sure. (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141240)

Hi, I might be able to answer that. Basically, he's reiterating commonly known conspiracy theory in that AGW is a platform of fear used to further the agenda of wealth redistribution. For example, the carbon credit trading scam.

When you're out of rational arguments... (2, Insightful)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140908)

...just try to stir up some controversy to re-awaken the crazies.

Re:When you're out of rational arguments... (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141074)

Except in this case the crazies are the ones who:

Believe models that have never predicted anything correctly.
Trust data that is manually manipulated, incomplete, inaccurate, disparate, and only goes back a blink of the eye in terms of the planet's history.
Trust statistical manipulation of said bad data.
Trust politicians whose only concerns are money and power, and whose only "solutions" involve shifting money and power, and not reducing consumption or pollution, or building things that are actually green, like nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.
Believe that man is the cause of the current trend, and that man can do something to stop it.
Believe that the Earth will be doomed if temperatures rise closer to points in Earth's past, despite the fact that throughout all of Earth's history, higher temperatures are when life flourished.

Global Warming, Global Climate Change, Anthropogenic Global Warming, Anthropogenic Climate Change, or whatever other bullshit labels you want to try out, is NOT an environmental issue.
It is a political issue.

Re:When you're out of rational arguments... (0, Troll)

DrInequality (521068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141228)

I'd go so far as to say it's a religion!

Re:When you're out of rational arguments... (5, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141310)

Believe models that have never predicted anything correctly.

You mean like the models that predict ocean currents, pacific oscillation, jet stream, gulf stream, and whose decadal temperature predictions are, if anything, a bit on the conservative side?

Trust data that is manually manipulated, incomplete, inaccurate, disparate, and only goes back a blink of the eye in terms of the planet's history.

Yes, every data set has been manipulated. Weird that no one seems to come up with a data set that is clean, or without statistical error. I mean, they'd get their names into the annales of science pretty much immediately. I'm sure Exxon has a few billion lying around with which to sponsor such a study. Weird that they don't... they must know something we don't. Wait, they just know something you don't. And how much data do you need? Are you going to be happy when climate data goes back to when the earth was a loose amalgam of space dust?

Trust politicians whose only concerns are money and power, and whose only "solutions" involve shifting money and power, and not reducing consumption or pollution, or building things that are actually green, like nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.

Al Gore might be a convenient whipping boy, but no climate scientist is quoting Al Gore. Not to mention that you'd crucify him if he weren't putting his money where his mouth is. Nice straw man, but no win.

Believe that man is the cause of the current trend, and that man can do something to stop it.

There's no need to believe when you have a physical model for how man influences the current trend, data that supports the existence of the physical model and data that disproves the assumption that CO2 emitted by man does not influence the global temperature.

Believe that the Earth will be doomed if temperatures rise closer to points in Earth's past, despite the fact that throughout all of Earth's history, higher temperatures are when life flourished.

One straw man, one lie through omission and one lie through commission in one sentence. Nice going.
1) No one is arguing that the earth is doomed, outside of people like you. Climate scientists are arguing that life is going to get mighty uncomfortable for a large swath of humanity, costing everyone on earth a nice chunk of change to adapt to.
2) Humans weren't around when temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much higher than now.
3) Mass extinctions are tied to high temperatures and high CO2 contents. Look up PETM extinction event.

Man, whatever it takes to continue living your own life, and screw whoever comes after you, right? Nice going. The last guy who made this his official motto caused massive international bloodshed.

Re:When you're out of rational arguments... (-1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141082)

They wake up every day and go to work at climatological prognostication centers all round the world.

Re:When you're out of rational arguments... (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141202)

The saddest part about the whole climate debate is that neither side behaves rationally anymore. The debate has become so politically polarized that I feel it is difficult to trust nearly any evidence presented by either side, although the recent Koch-funded study looked like good science. Add in the fact that climate is so vastly complex it is impossible, without intensely studying it, for even the generally scientifically inclined to make judgments given the facts, and you have an issue that it becomes nearly pointless to even talk about anymore. Every time it comes up on Slashdot it inevitably comes down to a flamewar. And that flame comes from both sides.

And you aren't helping.

The saddest thing is that there are not two sides (2, Insightful)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141424)

The saddest part about the whole climate debate is that neither side behaves rationally anymore

There is no "other side" to the climate debate. There is a widely accepted set of facts, and there are professional doubters employed by the industries who stand to lose money if they are required to behave with even a smidgeon of responsibility towards the communities they are polluting and damaging with their pollutants.

There is no fucking "other side" to this debate. Climate change IS NOW HAPPENING. There is no longer any reason to dispute this subject because the signs are obvious. I grew up in Colorado in the 1970's and 1980's. When I go back there now, it is totally fucking unambiguous to me that on a global scale the temperature is rising. Look up from your feet at some previously snow-capped mountains -- it's not that damn hard.

Large-scale glaciers calving off into icebergs. The polar sea is now navigable for greater and greater periods of the year. If anything the prognostications of climate scientists have been overwhelmingly vindicated well ahead of schedule.

If you think there is another "side" to this, I would like you to produce the science that they are doing. Scientific papers, evidence -- ANY DAMN THING that contradicts the current accepted model.

I submit you will find exactly DICK in that regard. Except for the fictional natterings of Bjorn Lomborg (not a climate scientist in any way shape or form) you are not going to find much.

But if you do, bring it, mofo. Bring it the fuck on.

Re:The saddest thing is that there are not two sid (5, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141476)

And you just proved his point.

Re:When you're out of rational arguments... (4, Insightful)

whathappenedtomonday (581634) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141460)

True. I really like what was said in the comment section here: [discovermagazine.com] "The correct response to bad science, if that is what you are alleging, is more science, not stolen emails."

Re:When you're out of rational arguments... (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141518)

...just try to stir up some controversy to re-awaken the crazies.

Agreed.

Were we talking about the crazies that are completely proselytize global warming, or the crazies that completely deny global warming?

But there was no controversy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38140912)

The previous leaked e-mails had two results:

Sham news reporting like Fox News cherry-picked out-of-context blurbs that made it sound like the scientists couldn't agree on anything.

Real news reporting actually read all the conversations and saw the conclusion was that the scientists were unanimous in agreeing that climate change is real.

That they'd do a second leak proves that the leakers are morons who think this offensive sound-bites Fox reports will have some kind of impact, whereas the actual content of the e-mail will reaffirm what everybody already knows. Climate change is real and these upcoming leaked emails won't change anything.

Also I love that Fox sympathizers have to commit a crime (hacking into an institution) just to get ammo which they mistakenly think will bolster their "cause". If they had the brains to actually read the emails themselves, they'd see it hurts them.

Re:But there was no controversy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141078)

[T]he leakers are morons who think this offensive sound-bites Fox reports will have some kind of impact, whereas the actual content of the e-mail will reaffirm what everybody already knows.

I think Fox has lots of impact, unfortunately. While they constantly say things that intuitively feels like things that should make anyone go "Does not compute" and then have their head explode or at least realize that Fox is lying and saying completely moronic things, that doesn't seem to be what happens for nearly enough people. I don't get how, but apparently enough people are this stupid or want to believe it this much.

I have some hope that ideas will evolve dialectically and that a better approximation of truth will be more commonplace in the future, but we do not yet seem to have arrived at a place where bat-shit insane ideas and blatant lies aren't happily gobbled up by alarmingly large swathes of the population.

Of course it is real (4, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141150)

Unreal how some think "deniers" believe that climate change doesn't exist. The earth's climate has been constantly evolving over billions of years.

Problem is we've been able to accurately measure the minuscule changes in climate for about 50 of 14 billion years. Second problem is we have absolutely no idea what climate changes the earth can sustain and which ones the earth cannot sustain.

Still no definite answers here. Some of this junk research "confirming" that climate change exists adds confusion to those not smart enough to understand this.

Re:Of course it is real (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141312)

A lot of deniers think the world was created exactly as it is now about 6000 years ago. The idea that climate has changed is heretical.

Re:Of course it is real (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141512)

A lot of deniers think the world was created exactly as it is now about 6000 years ago. The idea that climate has changed is heretical.

You are talking about the Hockey Stick crew, I presume?

Re:But there was no controversy (2, Funny)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141162)

It's just that the fact have a liberal bias and that pisses some people off bigtime.

Re:But there was no controversy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141260)

Bullshit. The earth is cooling. You guys are sheep. It's a political power grab. You guys who voted for Obama and believe this shit are out of your minds. George Carlin said it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Miv4NHsDo&list=FLV1k-RPJCLnCzxz7gsLqNEw&index=4&feature=plpp_video

Re:But there was no controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141332)

Bullshit. The earth is cooling.

Of course, why didn't I see it before! Why, some might even say the climate is changing. Hmm...

Timing (4, Interesting)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140926)

If they are so infuriated about the timing they could publish the emails themselves in less sensible times, thus evading some of the shitstorm and gaining back a bit of reliability.

Re:Timing (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140972)

Less sensible times?

How can things be less sensible than at present? But of course,

In the new release a 173MB zip file called "FOIA2011" containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves "FOIA" then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics –

I'm going to just rush right over and download a 173 MB zip file from some random Russian server.

Talk about sensible....

Re:Timing (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141062)

The University claimed in the statement that: "This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change."

I'm going to just rush right over and download a 173 MB zip file from some random Russian server.

What's the problem? Even if you are on the opposite side of Earth than the server 173MBs shouldn't take that long.

Re:Timing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141250)

The University claimed in the statement that: "This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change."

I'm going to just rush right over and download a 173 MB zip file from some random Russian server.

What's the problem? Even if you are on the opposite side of Earth than the server 173MBs shouldn't take that long.

PRO TIP: The reason your computer is so slow and Windows keeps crashing is because you somehow implicitly trust and keep downloading cracked games from random Russian servers.

ADDITIONAL: In your case, it's not "just Windows". It's because you'll apparently download and execute any large file from a random Russian server without a second thought, so long as it's large enough to possibly be some cracked game or program you want, despite an extensive history and astoundingly strong correlation* between random fly-by-night Russian webservers and viruses/trojans/other malware.

NOTICE: Your computer is most likely spewing spam. Please remove all of your computing devices currently able to connect to the internet from the internet, then please remove yourself from life. This will help solve the problem.

*: PRO TIP: "Correlation is not causation" will not save you here.

Re:Timing (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141326)

You haven't dealt much with Russian servers and the botnets that run them, do you?

Re:Timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141426)

I'm going to just rush right over and download a 173 MB zip file from some random Russian server.

What's the problem? Even if you are on the opposite side of Earth than the server 173MBs shouldn't take that long.

The random Russian server is the problem.

Re:Timing (2)

quantaman (517394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141168)

Maybe if they had good reason to believe that more emails were obtained but not yet released.

But it's also a very understandable reaction. Would you want to release your organization's private emails when the only people interested in them are people trying to discredit you?

Also note that even if these emails are work related they are still private, consider any time you've sent an email without CC'ing someone, now consider your worst enemies combing through those emails.

Re:Timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141292)

All the emails that I have seen relate to the work that, in the case of UEA, I have to fund. None relate to private issue unless it's slagging off colleagues for their research.

MInd you since CRU/UEA is confirming them, they are going to be in hot water. Imagine denying you have them for FOI requests, then being able to confirm them.

Tut tut. Very stupid

FOIA? (2)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140934)

FOIA = Freedom Of Information Act

Re:FOIA? (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141142)

Good, Yogi.

That other study (5, Insightful)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140946)

Are we forgetting that the Koch brothers funded a separate study that pretty much confirmed the results? Crazies will be crazies, but I don't expect reasonable persons to be swayed by this.

Re:That other study (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141066)

No one is disputing the results. What is in dispute is the probable cause of said results.

Re:That other study (0)

thegreatemu (1457577) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141172)

No one is disputing the results. What is in dispute is the probable cause of said results.

...and the validity of the models that are being used to predict future developments ...and the appropriate level of response to undertake based on those predictions ...and how to afford that response ...and whether things like cap and trade would do any good under any circumstances or are just another revenue stream for a small group

There's plenty to question even if you agree with the basic scientific premise (as most do, I think).

Re:That other study (1, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141372)

whether things like cap and trade would do any good under any circumstances

Even if you assume that the A in AGW is true, cap and trade seems unlikely to work. For a reason why it's not likely to work, see Free Trade with China, the war on drugs, or any other attempt by government to stop a black market that has universal appeal and isn't regarded as immoral by a sufficient majority.

The government has a hard enough time when behavior *is* regarded as immoral by the majority. See Penn State for an example of that.

So. Cap and trade. Whatever. Corrupt Chinese CEOs, start your smokestacks...

Re:That other study (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141178)

I think we can be fairly sure that the cause of all planetary warming/cooling, past, present and future, is "atmospheric composition".

The alternative to this is that the Earth can somehow heat itself up spontaneously.

Re:That other study (2, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141108)

Just because transparent research has found the same we shouldn't give credit to data forgers. They caused more harm in the public view.

Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (0, Troll)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140964)

Long ago, the emails have just demonstrated that the people pushing it understand that perfectly well.

As things stand not one of the models that foretold our doom has held up over time. What we get is every 10 years a new set of predictions and models explaining why the last 20 years models and predictions weren't correct but we are still doomed anyway.

And every time there is evidence that it is just a political con game

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ [technologyreview.com]

As the hockey stick was, as the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing did you just get the greens closing ranks and hoping if they keep a united front up, the ludites hatred of all things tech, and the political class's willingness to profit from crisis will carry their position forward.

Re:Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141004)

Can't tell if you're trolling or really believe that nonsense. I'd go through and disprove each of your points, but I'm sick of it. Show some support for your assertions. That link you posted is 7 years old, and only applied to a very small part in the first place anyway.

Re: Richard Muller (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141036)

And every time there is evidence that it is just a political con game

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ [technologyreview.com]

As the hockey stick was, as the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing did you just get the greens closing ranks and hoping if they keep a united front up, the ludites hatred of all things tech, and the political class's willingness to profit from crisis will carry their position forward.

That's a nice article you linked there. Richard Muller? Maybe you bothered to follow up with what he actually found? The rest of Slashdot did [slashdot.org] and I think you might be interested in it.

Why you can't talk to greens (1, Interesting)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141328)

This is what your climate skeptic had to say

"... "back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming."

So lets just ignore the part that the greens were pushing about the climate skeptic who had a come to god moment.

Lets look at what one his team members had to say about his come to god paper.

"But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1eTMUgUpc [dailymail.co.uk] "

Re:Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (2, Insightful)

SeekerDarksteel (896422) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141038)

The only people that think that the last batch of emails demonstrated any kind of fraud are people who have no fucking clue what the fuck the emails actually said.

But don't let little things like facts and observable reality get in the way of your diatribe of made up facts and fabrications.

Re:Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (0, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141144)

The only people that think that the last batch of emails demonstrated any kind of fraud are people who have no fucking clue what the fuck the emails actually said.

Intentionally manipulating data or statistical summaries of data in order to achieve a desired result is the absolute antithesis of science.
The last batch of emails showed this practice is rampant.

Re:Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141110)

Don't forget the essential aspect of the entire climate science debate: The only solution is cap-and-trade and carbon credits. Oh yeah, and ethanol. Starve poor people to fill western gas tanks and allow high finance and high frequency traders to skim a few nickels off of energy produced from every carbon source used for fuel in any country anywhere in the world.

Re:Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (1, Informative)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141200)

You don't seem to have fully read the very article you reference as proof of your intended point, rather it appears you cherry-picked what confirmed your bias. Did you read this paragraph?

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

Or what about the final paragraph?

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

The author of your "evidence" doesn't even share your conspiratorial conclusions.

Look, folks, Slashdot has its share of crazies, too!

Re:Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141418)

You don't seem to have fully read the very article you reference as proof of your intended point, rather it appears you cherry-picked what confirmed your bias. Did you read this paragraph?

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

That's a great paragraph. Even if new data shows "cooling" we'll just call it a random fluctuation. Funny how that argument is dismissed when the short term "warming trend" looks to be "random fluctuation" presented to the man made global warming crowd.

Re:Climate change ceased to be a scientific issue (5, Insightful)

quantaman (517394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141222)

What we get is every 10 years a new set of predictions and models explaining why the last 20 years models and predictions weren't correct but we are still doomed anyway

In the words of Issac Asimov [tufts.edu]

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Stupid Motive (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38140968)

Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:

"Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase. We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics."

Listen, I'm all for the publication of the data and methods these scientists are using. But what exactly is releasing internal e-mails supposed to accomplish? Acting all righteous about "hiding the decline" and then you turn around and censor what you release?! That's pretty funny to me. Who do you think climate change is going to hurt the most anyway? My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet? Or the truly poor people [wbur.org] ? You know that subsistence farmer in Africa or China where a drought, famine or conflict could wipe him out at the drop of a hat? When times get tough, I'll have to give up my XBox Live Gold Account ... what the hell is someone living on less than $2 a day going to do?

It'll probably turn out like the UN anyway where the US pays $362 million and China pays $29 million [un.org] so that's some pretty flimsy motivation there when the wealthiest nations will most likely be footing the bill.

Re:Stupid Motive (2)

felipekk (1007591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141088)

Just to clarify the UN budget argument:

"Each State's contribution is calculated on the basis of its share of the world economy."

"The primary criterion applied by Member States, through the General Assembly, is a country's capacity to pay. This is based on estimates of their gross national product (GNP) and a number of adjustments, including for external debt and low per capita incomes. The percentage shares of each Member State in the budget are decided by the General Assembly based on this methodology and range from a minimum of 0.001 per cent to a maximum of 22 per cent, and a maximum of 0.01 per cent from least developed countries."

Re:Stupid Motive (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141204)

My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet?

This imagery reminds me of the humor style of the guy who does The Oatmeal [theoatmeal.com] .

Re:You Have Ovaries (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141282)

My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet?

This imagery reminds me of the humor style of the guy who does The Oatmeal [theoatmeal.com] .

*oh my god, a girl is trying to talk to me on Slashdot, quick, reply with something that will impress her!*

I also snort.

Re:You Have Ovaries (2)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141388)

My fat American ass shoving honey coated whole wheat pretzels into my gaping maw while surfing the internet?

This imagery reminds me of the humor style of the guy who does The Oatmeal [theoatmeal.com] .

*oh my god, a girl is trying to talk to me on Slashdot, quick, reply with something that will impress her!*

I also snort.

I just snorted milk out my nose [slashdot.org] !

Re:Stupid Motive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141226)

You know that subsistence farmer in Africa or China where a drought, famine or conflict could wipe him out at the drop of a hat?

Well if he were really bootstrappy he would give up the hat.

Dogs To Vomit (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141086)

"Climategate II"?

Seriously?

Who's behind this garbage, Hollywood?

Re:Dogs To Vomit (3, Funny)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141236)

Could've been worse. Could've been Climategate II: Electric Boogaloo.

Re:Dogs To Vomit (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141336)

might as well be

Yawn, all the alarmists will be spinning furiously (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141120)

Whoopie, another batch of incriminating emails for the alarmists to explain away. Furious spin doctoring has already commenced. True Believers continue to deny the reality of the ideological slant which has distorted climate science for the political gain of such luminaries as Al "the Bore" Gore.

tough to be unbiased (2, Insightful)

one_who_uses_unix (68992) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141128)

This event helps highlight the difficulty in approaching any non-trivial problem in an unbiased way. The problem is less about the science than it is that the researches were clearly biased and pursuing specific results. The fact that others have claimed to reproduce the results does not lend credibility as long as they fail to acknowledge their bias and operate in a fully transparent way.

Whether you agree or disagree with the question of human affected climate change you really can't deny the fact that these folks are heavily biased toward a specific outcome for their research.

Pass phrase protected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141186)

Apparently there are 1/4 million more emails protected by a pass phrase. Much discussion over at www.wattsupwiththat.com revolves around just how easy it is to crack a pass phrase. Some opinion is that, since there are encrypted and unencrypted versions of the same email, it should be easy. Other opinion is that the password will never be cracked?

Ok slashdotters, how easy is it to crack a passphrase?

Re:Pass phrase protected (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141246)

Depends, got details of the encryption scheme?

Mostly more of the same (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141220)

I read through all of the highlighted quotes, 90-95% of it is more of the same stuff, climate denialists trying to find hanging material in the lines of innocent men. But there are a few quotes that were worth leaking, particularly under the "religion" and "the cause" sections. It's worrying that so many climate scientists have a professed personal interest in the outcome of their experiments turning out to support the theory of global warming. If any outcome should make them happier, they should be happier to prove themselves wrong, both because that's where the really interesting results (and Nobel prizes) come from, and in this case it would be good news for the human race which is mostly still hemming and hawing over whether to take this carbon emissions thing seriously.

Re:Mostly more of the same (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141270)

Wait... So direct quotes of them talking about hiding information from the public is .... innocent? Dear god do you libtards listen to yourselves?

Re:Mostly more of the same (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141384)

Most of the highlighted quotes include so little context that they're practically meaningless by themselves, I suspect it's not due to laziness, especially considering what happened in the first round of leaks...I'll have to find the context in the source material or wait for a debunking article that includes the context.

Re:Mostly more of the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141410)

I'm pretty sure they're happy to find more evidence that maybe in the end can convince remaining skeptics, and while they'd be happy if they found out the whole thing was just a big mistake, it turns out that well, it just isn't.

They have faith that science and reason will somehow convince the hateful death cult that will burn the world just to spite a liberal. In that, I think they're sadly deluded.

What the hell is wrong with you people (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38141288)

Is climate change caused by humans? Is it a natural cycle?

Fuck that godamn question.

Here's what's happening right now: our fucking boat is sinking. Instead of trying to keep it afloat we're arguing about wether it's a pilot error or an iceberg.

Stop arguing about pointless shit and stop doing everything we can. If climate change is our fault, then we can probably also reverse it before it's too late. If it's a natural cycle that could possibly wipe out all humans from the surface of the planet, then we need to fight even harder against it.

I don't understand this fucking laid-back attitude from both camps.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people (2)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141470)

It's easy: we need to know if our megacorporations are responsible or not. If not, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it, everyone else will. If they are, they need to know so they can declare bankruptcy and turn the planet into a superfund site so they won't pay for it, everyone else will.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf... (1)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141414)

should be all that's needed to be said.

At a time when TV starts to edit-out AGW shows: (2, Informative)

Burz (138833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141454)

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/frozen_planet_freezes_out_clim.php?page=all [cjr.org]

They are acting like its because of everyday scheduling concerns, but notice that ALL of the networks which chose to remove an episode singled out THAT particular one. BBC refuses to name the other countries that won't be seeing the AGW episode, but we know that Discovery Channel (e.g. the USA) won't be broadcasting it... surely it would upset advertisers (e.g. US Chamber of Commerce, who have become active denialists) to show that episode.

This and the emails are part of an effort to keep AGW from becoming a major election issue at a time when it is tangibly starting to hurt Americans.

What a difference a few years makes... (1)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38141458)

I remember a time when the /. crowd was mostly skeptics regarding global warming, hybrid vehicles, recycling, etc...

That was about 3 years ago.

I wonder if things have changed because people have changed their minds, or if the /. crowd has gone through a transition.

Personally, I'm still skeptical of claims I can't personally quantify. And I haven't been able to quantify global warming or the /. crowd yet, but I feel like I'm getting closer to figuring out the latter. When that happens, I guess I'll stop commenting.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>