Is Global Warming a Hoax?

ClimateGate - Climate center's server hacked revealing documents and emails

Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.

He told Britain’s Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

The file that has been making the rounds was initially brought to light by the website The Air Vent. The 61mb file contains thousands of documents and emails. As the archive was just discovered within the last 24 hours, its authenticity has not been determined and as such readers should cast a skeptical eye on the contents. It should also be noted that it appears the emails were illegally obtained by whoever originally posted them.

At least one person that was included in some of the correspondence, Steve McIntyre of the website Climate Audit, verified the authenticity of at least some of the messages. McIntyre said, “Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine. It is really quite breathtaking.”

The contents of the archive contain documents and email correspondence from a veritable who’s who in climate science. Among those included in the emails are Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, his assistant, Michael Mann of Penn State, Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona, Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and others.

The emails contain an array of discussions including what appear to be concerted efforts to withhold data. Just as troubling is conversations that allude to potentially manipulating climate data to “hide the decline” of temperatures seen in the last decade.

Some of the excerpts of emails within the archives (edited for brevity, emphasis added):

From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

From Nick McKay (modifying data):

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

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.

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. 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.

From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):

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.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

If the emails and documents are a forgery, it would be an extremely large one that would likely have taken months to setup. No doubt much more will be coming out about these emails and their possible authenticity. Stay tuned to the Climate Change Examiner for updates as more information becomes available.

Update, 10:30am – Since the original publication of this article, the story is gaining steam and now the BBC is reporting on it. They report that a spokesman for the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.”

Analysis of the emails and documents in the archives continues. We must stress that the authenticity has not been proven however there have been no denials of such by the climate center. Some of the more recent revelations include:

From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

From Tom Wigley (data modification):

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

From Thomas R Karl (witholding data) :

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

From Phil Jones (forging of dates):

Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

From a document titled "jones-foiathoughts.doc" (witholding of data):

Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

From Mick Kelly (modifying data to hide cooling):

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Update, 3:45pm MDT: In regards to the authenticity, not one report disputing the veracity of the emails has come out. Many sources have talked to some of the email authors and they have not disputed the messages.
RealClimate, a website on which many of the scientists in the emails actively write has posted a response and does not deny their authenticity.
According to TIGF, a New Zealand new magazine, “The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.”
A spokesman for the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) told the BBC, “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.”

Wired reports that Kevin Trenberth from NCAR “acknowledged the e-mail is genuine.”

Nature reports quotes Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University as saying, "I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails."

It would appear at this point that there is little doubt that the emails are authentic. If they were not, the principle players would certainly have said so by now.

Download Link
Source of The Article

Open-Sourcing the Global Warming Debate

^lol yeah, nice to see soemthing about this show up.
I'm just of the opinion that humans can never really change the climate, that it is a force beyond our control and comprehension, and that there are periods when the planet is warm and when it is cool

When you are blaming farting cows in Australia and wheat fields in India, but ignoring all industrial pollutant reduction protocols yourself, there is a trend that not too many can overlook.

Also, a lot of jobs to be lost if everyone stopped believing in environmentalism and climate change

^YAh!! There has been too much iffy going on to trust these "intellectuals".

Global warming is a nice way of looting people. Carbon tax etc will squeeze the hell out of mango people.

I think India should not take this BS when 70% pollution is caused by developed countries. We are still a bunch of "thode mein gujara" type people and we should not be imposed with more taxes. India must not act as a sacrificial lamb. Let the West cut down their life style of gas guzzling SUVs.

IF there is a mess, then its created by Developed countries; but now they want the developing and 3rd world countries to pay or I should put, is contribute to a World Fund, which will be used for giving out loans.

USA is talking all about need to curb the carbon-content but dont want to implement on their own country and companies, rather as USA has been doing is lecturing others.

Sau chuhe khaakar, Billi chali Hajj ko

kanjar said:
Global warming is a nice way of looting people. Carbon tax etc will squeeze the hell out of mango people.

I think India should not take this BS when 70% pollution is caused by developed countries. We are still a bunch of "thode mein gujara" type people and we should not be imposed with more taxes. India must not act as a sacrificial lamb. Let the West cut down their life style of gas guzzling SUVs.

Exactly my views. :thumbs:

I would recommend you guys read State of Fear by Michael Crichton for more about this. The story is fiction, but all the sources and facts cited are non-fiction. I changed my outlook on global warming after reading that book.

Krow said:
I would recommend you guys read State of Fear by Michael Crichton for more about this. The story is fiction, but all the sources and facts cited are non-fiction. I changed my outlook on global warming after reading that book.

Same here dude, same here....

That book is just awesome and eye opener.
No, it does not ask (and we are also not asking) about believing it blindly, but it sure helps question what is being fed to us by media.

I've already quoted the points made by Crichton in some threads here, would quote again for u guys here.

read last few chapters of 'Super Freakonomics' there is some good info on Geo Engineering which offers diff views on this global warming topic

_

J

How can we believe on books which written long time ago at that time they don't even known that our earth is round and about environment. It just a little guess.

rhitwick said:
No, it does not ask (and we are also not asking) about believing it blindly, but it sure helps question what is being fed to us by media.

What I am baffled by is the fact that in our education system we are fed with this Global Warming BS in every year science textbooks and then it continues in Engg text books too. Probably its same in other countries too.

Only if we are introduced to the other side too like Solar flare phenomenon etc. But then we get to know about it thru the Internet onlee and everyone know the plight of Internet here.

Super Freakonomics? Would like to read that. Freakonomics was interesting.

Basically I think it's a scam to keep the underdeveloped world underdeveloped only. As development means using technology that makes the world go warm.

Anorion said:
Basically I think it's a scam to keep the underdeveloped world underdeveloped only. As development means using technology that makes the world go warm.

They are making our land an experimentation ground so that they can know what are the perils of each new "green" technology before they use it themselves. Plus, they will make sure we have to import the necessary technologies/components required to implement it from them and thus its two birds killed with merely a fake gas filled rumour stone.

I disagree. Global warming is not a hoax. If it were a hoax, all major governments would not have recognized it. Governments around the world, including china, are making efforts to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases.

the below link is about china's carbon emission targets:

*news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/china-unveils-carbon-emissions-targets-20091126-jukh.html

It is not right for India to duck responsibility. If we are an under-developed nation, it is only our fault. A lot of other south asian countries (singapore etc...) were very similar to us when they got independence, but they got ahead. how?

success and excuses don't go together.

global warming will only affect us and other animals, but not our planet. Earth will bounce back. Earth has faced many catastrophes, but with time, all wounds heal. our species may die, we may push other species to extinction. but new ones will come around, with time. its evolution.

india is a big contributor to greenhouse gases. the fact that we are exploiting forest area only aggravates the problem. fewer trees=reduced capability to handle CO2.

State of Fear by Michael Crichton . .That will answer all your doubts AND clear the air of this media created hypocrisy.

TBH, if it means saving the environment, greener futures or cleaner air to breathe, I wouldn't mind if the media continues to play the same story of hysteria and eventually, get the world to clean up their act

@nix, yes, read "State of Fear"
FYI..some facts (authors note) from the book

>We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.

>Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.

>We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the “Little Ice Age.”

>Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.

>Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.

>Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess—the only thing anyone is doing, really—I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else’s. (We can’t “assess” the future, nor can we “predict” it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)

>I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor.

>Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.

>I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don’t know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardy perennial in human calculation.

>There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century.

>I conclude that most environmental “principles” (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the developing world. It is a nice way of saying, “We got ours and we don’t want you to get yours, because you’ll cause too much pollution.”

>The “precautionary principle,” properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.

>I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.

>I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes. Ideologues and zealots don’t.

>In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970s.

>We haven’t the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term “wilderness,” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational, and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip miners. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence.

>We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers.

>We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily—usually by preventing something—with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control.

>Nothing is more inherently political than our shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by allegiance to a single political party. Precisely because the environment is shared it cannot be managed by one faction according to its own economic or aesthetic preferences. Sooner or later, the opposing faction will take power, and previous policies will be reversed. Stable management of the environment requires recognition that all preferences have their place: snowmobilers and fly fishermen, dirt bikers and hikers, developers and preservationists. These preferences are at odds, and their incompatibility cannot be avoided. But resolving incompatible goals is a true function of politics.

>We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research—whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization—always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization “studies” are every bit as biased and suspect as industry “studies.” Government “studies” are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass.

@nix: It's called "the greenhouse effect for a reason". Plants live on co2, so the more the co2, the better for plants. The last time there was a lot of co2 in the atmosphere, I think it was in the late Jurrasic period, but am not sure, the rain forests sprouted around the world.
There is very little scientific evidence that points at a man made global warming. Little scientific evidence of worldwide warming at all.
Think about it, everythign from UV-protective contact lenses to "green" and low power consumption hardware is priced at a premium.

Money making move

This thread is approved by Al Gore...NOT.

An Inconvenient Truth is hogwash. :boink:

him.

not just hog wash these are very famous politicians and scientists supporting this propaganda
and many people believes it without questioning because of this reason

it has to do much more than just making money through carbon tax and other sh1t

nikhilspoliticalblog.wordpress.com- Corporate India is wrong about India's population

is this your website nix?

dont know its hoax are not but this thread definely changed my way on global warming
iam gonna study more on this topic

according to today's newspaper report(and the link I gave), the chinese govt has acted. surely, the chinese aren't foolish to fall for a 'hoax'.

^Surely they aren't transparent enough for us to know what exactly they are doing. Renewable sources are much more energy efficient than traditional non-renewable sources (as low as 30% efficiency). Whatever they do, it is for their own gain and to gain diplomatic candy. Find out if they do the same in the various oil fields they bid for in Africa. I doubt it if they do.

ok I have made some searches and found out these :

[size=+1]This is from science.Nasa[/size]

me said:
Correlations between rising CO2 levels and global surface temperatures suggest that our planet is on a one-way warming trend triggered by human activity. Indeed, studies by paleoclimatologists reveal that natural variability caused by changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions can largely explain deviations in global temperature from 1000 AD until 1850 AD, near the beginning of the Industrial Era. After that, the best models require a human-induced greenhouse effect.

"They argue that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. The Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence, they note. And not all of the evidence supports global warming. Air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably, according to satellite data, and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the last 20 years."

[size=+1]from Cnn[/size]

me said:
The temperatures were relatively unchanged from 1880 to 1910, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They rose till about 1945, cooled until about 1975 and have risen steadily to present day.
There are several possible reasons for the warming, scientists say.

A change in the Earth's orbit or the intensity of the sun's radiation could change, triggering warming or cooling.

"Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"We've suddenly taken to reading tea leaves," he said. "When we saw cooling from 1940 to 1970, we were proclaiming global cooling. Since then, there's been a few tenths of global warming, so we're proclaiming global warming."
"The Earth is always getting colder and warmer," he said. "It's always changing. In fact, this is true of any fluid-covered planet."

[size=+1]And From science daily[/size]

me said:
"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas,""If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer." Argues a scientist named Robert Essenhigh
According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin to cool into a new ice age.

What is this i started my search as global warming and ended my self at all the Global warming due to co2 (industries , automobiles) is $hit.
i mean is this really a hoax any one in opposite of this article plz prove me that All the global warming (due to co2 ) is not a hoax.
All the things i was taught at my school college and many seminars is Bull$hit ?

jxcess3091 said:
a lot of scientists with phd believes that global warming is true what do you think they know?

Do u have any valid info to say that global warming(due to co2) is a hoax

^ what the hell r u thinking(and talking) man ?
far above our heads ? then why the hell r u even posting in this forum find some forum or site which consists persons equal to ur brain
some one ban this person

azzu said:
dont know its hoax are not but this thread definely changed my way on global warming
iam gonna study more on this topic

I recommend watching videos on *www.dedroidify.com/vids/ :idea:

search for 'global warming' on that page

_

what a shame, we have again showed that we lack independent thinking and cannot take decisions on our own.

China's climate pledge a 'wake up call': India
*www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hNJDVUim1u87YuGilsMCoi1evtIg
"China has given a wake-up call to India"-environment minister jairam ramesh.

its big news, and its all over the net

china pledges to cut greenhouse gases, its premier to attend copenhagen climate summit:

*www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-climate-1126-1127nov27,0,767952.story

Global Warming or El nino or whatever you say ... there is something going on with the climate and it certainly does not feel good.

Here is one effect post Industrialisation: *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

and is Pollution a different problem altogether ?

@nix So we have to trust the same China which supplied nuclear arms to rouge states like NoKo and Pakistan even though it is in P5...lol...biggest joke of the century.

Shame on us !

Krow said:
Exactly my views.

I would recommend you guys read State of Fear by Michael Crichton for more about this. The story is fiction, but all the sources and facts cited are non-fiction. I changed my outlook on global warming after reading that book.

U r absolutely right bro.........its like an eyeopener.........after reading the book i hav done a bit of googling and found some of the claims to be true.........but am still confused whether Global Warming is a hoax or nt cuz our climate is really changing n its getting worse day by day.........so am damn confused

I say be as green as possible, not because of global warming nonsense, but because you love nature and would like to be a part of it (instead of killing it).

^+1..........

Krow said:
I say be as green as possible, not because of global warming nonsense, but because you love nature and would like to be a part of it (instead of killing it).

well said krow

davinci said:
but am still confused whether Global Warming is a hoax or nt cuz our climate is really changing n its getting worse day by day.........so am damn confused

me too still confused and yes climate is gettin worse day by day but we cant exactly say its because of co2

And +2 for Crows comment

davinci said:
U r absolutely right bro.........its like an eyeopener.........after reading the book i hav done a bit of googling and found some of the claims to be true.........but am still confused whether Global Warming is a hoax or nt cuz our climate is really changing n its getting worse day by day.........so am damn confused

azzu said:
me too still confused and yes climate is gettin worse day by day but we cant exactly say its because of co2

And +2 for Crows comment

can you give me an example that climate is getting worse day by day?
i only see such talks in tv and other media which is also telling us that global warming is happening

^^^^^ like sealevel is rising year by year.

Gauravs90 said:
^^^^^ like sealevel is rising year by year.

again we only here these claims in movies and tv shows which tell us that global warming is melting the arctic ice and causing raise sea level.
can you prove that claim?

p_dude said:
again we only here these claims in movies and tv shows which tell us that global warming is melting the arctic ice and causing raise sea level.
can you prove that claim?

erm..i think if u go to north india,u would prolly see it for yourself..i do feel that maybe global warming is true..glaciers are melting quickly..there are various pics about glaciers melting in north india,Try googling...& as a result the ganga & other tributaries are seeing a rise in water level

Ronnie11 said:
erm..i think if u go to north india,u would prolly see it for yourself..i do feel that maybe global warming is true..glaciers are melting quickly..there are various pics about glaciers melting in north india,Try googling...& as a result the ganga & other tributaries are seeing a rise in water level

most of these climatic changes were normal cycle (not referring to ice age) increase and decrease in temperature happens but that doesnt mean that climate is getting worse day by day

Well if Global Warming is a hoax, how would you people think that the Ice caps at poles are melting faster and faster every year?

p_dude said:
can you give me an example that climate is getting worse day by day?
i only see such talks in tv and other media which is also telling us that global warming is happening

ok Y give examples of other places
ill tell u about my place here
The avg temperature during the 1950 to 1970 was 29c and now it is 32c this year and the Winter this year has been the coldest averaging 24 and in andhra pradesh this year was ht by a massive flood which hasnt been seen till now
iam sure climate is changing but we Dont exactly know whats the Actual cause behind it
and i cant show much proof's than this

@ Gigacore The ice at Antarctic has actually increased for the last 20 years. Please read rhitwick's post on the previous page. Source: State Of Fear.

Global warming is true, its not a hoax, i cant believe some people always fell for these controversies....its like nasa moon mission, some people still believes man never landed in moon....WTF?
companies may be making money with their green products but that doesn't mean global warming is hoax.

^We are not saying Global Warming is a hoax. The climate may be changing, it may as well be warming. Glaciers may be melting, and species may be dying out. BUT, here is the deal, all of this would probably have happened anyway, with or without human interference. The panda is an inherently weak species, with a highly specialised diet, and population that cannot evolve because of the limited gene pool. It was dying out since the previous ice age. Ice caps have been melting since 10,000 years. Ever seen an ice cube melting in a glass or a candle flame burn out? It is really noticeable only in the last few moments. Although the ice caps were melting throughout history, they got pointed out only recently. And what was to blame? Dams in Africa, Industry in China, Wheat plantations and Air Conditioners in India, and bovines with too much gastronomical irregularities in Australia. Yeah right.
Two: Why is the greenhouse effect called the greenhouse effect? Because it is great for greenhouses. What are greenhouses? Places where plants are grown. CO2 is GOOD for plant life. This is fourth standard science here.
Three: There have been many turns in the environmental tide. All kinds of prokaryots wiped out an entire kind of life. Something we depend upon so heavily was actually a poison at one point of time. Oxygen, wiped out an ecosystem of plants, replacing it with organisms of a shorter life span. All because of a "plague" of CO2 consuming, O2 spitting plants... which we now call the rain forests.
Four: There are loads of environmental myths. UV light for example, is good for life. Skin diseases may increase, there might be an imbalance, but it is also great for mutation, therefore adaptation, and ultimately, evolution.
Five: The biggest myth of all - the ecosystem was not in perfect balance and harmony till we came along. It has always been a volatile and changing entity. We came along, got along our changes, but plant life got along theirs, amphibian got along theirs, and mammals got along theirs, of which we are a part.
Five: Many of these myths are used to keep developed nations from using new technologies to the fullest. How come ACs were a problem only here? How come Africa is not allowed to develop despite being one of the richest lands in the world? Why do we need a Nuclear deal when our own land is brimming with Uranium? Because of the technology, which we don't have access to and cannot use - because it is suddenly environmentally hazardous.
Six: Yes, we are a destructive species. Yes, we are gowing away from what is natural. Yes, we live at a distance from the ecosystem. However, the only real danger is that we will destroy ourselves.

Suppose there is a Nuclear winter, or we obliterate the current ecosystem completely, life on this planet will not end. There are many organisms that can survive these, from bacteria, to viruses to even advanced animals such as cockroaches. We will start from an almost clean state, clear the stage for another evolutionary area. So yes, as someone pointed out in this thread, we only need to worry about ourselves and not the planet.

What a long and meaningful post. :doublethumb:

The Enemy by Desmond Bagley said:
We have found the enemy and it is us.

Victims of conditioned education

Its like saying Ankit Phadia is the most awesome hacker till I got my internet conn and explored a little bit the other side too.

And then he became FUDia.

@Krow: Increased? Maybe that's the biggest hoax!

To all those who think the ice has been increased from past 20 years, here's a guy who proved it with proof: *www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

Watch that video..

*www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html

For me its not That global warming is hoax or such thing but but i think its not because of Co2 rather than our planets Natural phenomenons which not even One scientist could predict accurately till date
no one can predict about Earths frequently changing weather or its fate in the Future

p_dude said:
most of these climatic changes were normal cycle (not referring to ice age) increase and decrease in temperature happens but that doesnt mean that climate is getting worse day by day

Erm i agree but the climatic shift is usually gradual..say about 0.5-0.8C...On the other hand we are seeing a temp increase at an average of 1.5C...

The climate, the ecosystem, the biosphere, and the planet, never was and never will be "normal". There is nothing known as "normal" here at all, there were always a gazillion factors affecting a gazillion other things.

Anorion said:
The climate, the ecosystem, the biosphere, and [size=+1]the planet, never was and never will be "normal"[/size]. There is nothing known as "normal" here at all, there were always a gazillion factors affecting a gazillion other things.

Perfectly correct

The climate, the ecosystem, the biosphere, and the planet, never was and never will be "normal". There is nothing known as "normal" here at all, there were always a gazillion factors affecting a gazillion other things.

What if I say, this is how our planet was...
Always changing.

And, those who are saying, climate is getting worse everyday, why do u say so?
Is it because "you" don't like the way its now?

How, about this is natural?

Climate will change, irrespective of, if you want (like) or don't want(like)...
Its ur problem if u fail to adapt...

And, kudos to Anorion's long post, try to read that full.

L

Global Warming is not a hoax!!
The polar ice caps are melting for real. Sea levels rising for real. Weather is changing for real.
Or is it just because we're close to 2012?
Ish once again global warming is not a hoax! It's like saying pollution doesn't exist! It's very real. Wake up and smell the coffee.

^Yeah right. :lol:

@ 2012

if global warming is a hoax, then why are governments around the world taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint?.

What can they possibly gain by perpetrating a hoax?

Those countries that took part in the copenhagen summit should have consulted you guys eh?

Because there was global warming & ice age even before human beings.These are natural cycles that repeat over time.
Only problem this time is its rate is much higher thanks to us.All nations are now taking necessary steps because warming speed is accelerated because of us.

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

@p_dude: Great Video. Very informative

@ nix Nice. Ignore all the evidence and sources and points we ave given. Al Gore has a job or two for you. Maybe you could help him shoot An Inconveniently Inconvenient Truth (read hogwash).

Krow said:
@ nix Nice. Ignore all the evidence and sources and points we ave given. Al Gore has a job or two for you. Maybe you could help him shoot An Inconveniently Inconvenient Truth (read hogwash).

Yes I agree with you. You are 100% right. :lol:

Al Gore has something to do here.

Will Media Report Al Gore's Hypocritical Private Plane Flights?

*www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

if u think global warming is hoax then reAD MICHAEL CRICHTON'S STATE OF FEAR. u will love it

Does anyone has the answer for this question:

if global warming is a hoax, then why are countries participating in the Copenhagen summit?

they are certainly not stupid to fall for a hoax.

coming to john holdren. john holdren is a scientist, and he knows what he's talking. I agree with him. We can't just keep multiplying, there aren't enough resources. We don't want to be another bangladesh. our politicians and media are downplaying the issue.

Ok, the word "hoax" makes it look like a bunch of guys got together and decided to conspire for money. It's not as direct as that. A certain set of beliefs has been exploited over time, culimnating in the current situation. Global warming, melting ice caps, extinction are all symptoms of humans feeling alienated from nature, which is a consequence of civilisatin. Now this feeling has been defined, exaggerated and commercially exploited. It is the same for a lot of other things as well, not just Global Warming. You cannot exactly call Scientology, or say certain conspiracy theories, or Tarot card reading a "hoax". You cannot call Astrology a hoax, can you?

@unix: One must not look only on one side while ignoring the relevant questions raised.
You must watch some videos of Alex Jones and you might be able to understand more clearly what the fuss it is all about.
I agree one must not just beleive what is shown in the video but one may use their logic and sense to have a somewhat conclusive thought of what the SUmmit is all about.

i am neither supporting nor denying any thing but i have some small question ??

1> is climate change a normal natural cycle ?? just like a flush to clear out the entire planet

2> if we are heating the system then what exactly will cool it down ??

3> What should common people like u and me do ?? go back to jungle hunt an endangered species and eat ?? or should we just go to the old days of the horses and carriages ??

4> politicians just bragg things and in reality its extremly hopeless to get things worked

5> do we need such post >

Answer to point 5 ---> Yes, for the knowledge of others.

@ rahim : He is nix and not unix. :rofl:

@spironox: what I think

1> is climate change a normal natural cycle ?? just like a flush to clear out the entire planet

Yes, but the "Flush" is a process that lasts for very large spans of time, millions of years. Climate change is always happening. Species live for a time, then die out, or change into something else. Every now and then there is something drastic, but the Ice Ages are what you must worry about, not warmings. Warmings are good for life and evolution. Ice ages are more periodic, and we are coming out of a cool period for roughly two hundred years or so.

2> if we are heating the system then what exactly will cool it down ??

There is no scientific study that says the whole planet, the crust or the oceans are heating. Some places, like the UK is cooling. There was snow there last year, which has not happened in a long time. Some places are warming up. Any scientific study will have some financial backing, so if Global Warming is not happening, the studies that say that are not likely to be funded.

3> What should common people like u and me do ?? go back to jungle hunt an endangered species and eat ?? or should we just go to the old days of the horses and carriages ??

Exactly the opposite. As long as we can sustain our own economic system, we should participate in aggressive progress. This means building loads of Dams, lots of cities, loads of roads. Things that China is doing, but being mindful of how sustainable the urban environments we create are. Basically building up the infrastructure without worrying about carbon credits.

4> politicians just bragg things and in reality its extremly hopeless to get things worked

Yes and no. There are politicians on both sides, for development, and at the same time to "heed the warnings". The real danger here is promising too much, and being able to deliver too little. If your economy is dependent on farmers toiling for twelve hours a day, you would want to keep them there, and say, for example, that you dont need tractors, or the fuel. Instead, you can buy this "green" tea which will help you work for 12 hours a day. This is a fight that has been going on for a long time.

5> do we need such post >

As long as it does not convince anyone, about anything, or to do anything but think for themselves.

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

if anyone cares... :/

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------

---------- Post added at 11:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

M

Yes and No. Obviously Climate on earth changes and at times the Planet does go through warming trends but at other times the Planet goes through Cooling trends as well. So Global Warming is real but so is Global Cooling. It's the Global Warming fanatics who have turned this issue into a hysterical fear mongering Hoax. They have created a Doomsday Cult full of Sky is Falling Loons who have been absolutely shameful and irresponsible with all their hysterical fear mongering. These Loons also have an obvious political agenda as well. Just take a closer look at who is behind this scam and that is where you will find all your answers. For the most part they are all wild-eyed hysterical Leftists/Socialists. The Global Warming fanatics have simply tried to silence all dissent and declare the case closed. There is much more research that has to be done on Climate Change and the case is definitely not closed. So as far as all the Leftist/Socialist over-dramatic Fear Mongering goes,yes Global Warming is a Hoax.

J

The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960's and 70's were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people's lives and for financial gain. There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air.

^When something is conveyed through the mouth of global leaders and celebrities, then more often than not, it sounds very convincing and people believe it without having a second thought. and it applies to both sides

Check out this book called "merchants of doubt", it is a pretty clear narrative of propaganda from the other side, how a bunch of companies obfuscated the truth about environmental change

blame it on developing countries anyway, just like superbug, thanks to zombie media
news.outlookindia.com | Superbug Author Dismisses Bacteria's Link to India

^^

India is everyone's punching bag. Be it US, or China. They just want us to pull over from being more advanced than them. It is B$

A

Makes me want to put a super duper sensitive thermometer in my house and check this for myself. After all ideas these ideas are hardwired in my brain, it will take more than that to rewire it. To think every single ******* on TV and the literate world was just writing trying to delude people. They may exaggerating but it's hard to believe they were faking it.

Also if wondering tl:dr hate reading walls of text.

Global warming. even a toddler knows its true by now. Every year it gets hotter and seasonal fluctuations are more common now. And heck National geography shows melting glaciers every hour.

^^ don't bump old thread.

Enough discussion and it's a proven fact Global Warming is real - time to close down.

Thanks for reopening the thread.

In many ways, this event was long overdue: climate sceptics have for years pointed out that the world is not warming as rapidly as once forecast.

A lot depends on how you do the measurements, of course.

Each of the last few decades has been warmer than the last. But start your graph in 1998 - which happened to be an exceptionally warm year - and there hasn't been much global warming at all.

Gradually the words 'pause' and 'hiatus' which first featured in the blogs have crossed to the media and then to the scientists professionally engaged in researching the global climate.

The headline - which the scientists will not thank me for - is that no one is really sure why the rate of warming has stumbled.

Pauses expected

On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected. This is new - at least to me.

It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear away but instead in fits and starts.

But I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before.

Read the full article here:-
BBC News - Why has global warming stalled?