Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 02:38:54 UTC No. 16205610

>>16205600
>Did they really falsify their data to support claims of global warming
yes

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 02:46:05 UTC No. 16205620

>>16205610
I remember when this came out. I read some of the emails and papers. I find it interesting that the major news outlets all found CRU did nothing wrong....ha ha...it was just some inside humor/jargon/joking between friends. Odd the lead researcher asked fellow researchers to delete emails to prevent info from being release to the public.

I also recall about this time, a paper from CERN regarding cosmic ray flux related to cloud formation, but the key figure was not allowed to be published with the paper. It took a bit of work for find the figure they were referring to in the paper, which showed a correlation between increased cosmic ray flux and more clouds/cooler temps. I recall follow on papers regarding changes in cosmic ray flux from the sun and in various portions of the galaxy the earth has, and will travel through, and these increases in cosmic rays have a significant effect on climate. It has been some years and I can't find those papers anymore.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:21:57 UTC No. 16206768

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 00:43:54 UTC No. 16207047

>>16206768
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search2&search_filename=1684060306970281.pdf

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:07:05 UTC No. 16207275

>>16206768
Thanks anon

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:15:08 UTC No. 16207279

This "climategate" is the most manufactured "scandal" I've ever seen

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:24:53 UTC No. 16207291

>>16207279
Did you read the emails? Its clear they were manipulating the data to get the results they were paid to get.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:28:26 UTC No. 16207294

>>16207291
No, it's the most mundane shit I've ever read. Just snippets of normal conversations taken out of context.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:29:26 UTC No. 16207295

>>16207279

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:32:05 UTC No. 16207298

>>16207294
>Just snippets of normal conversations taken out of context.
No, they are openly discussing the problems with the data not supporting the false claim "unprecedented" temp increase, and talking about how to hide the actual decline in temps, then to delete emails to prevent the emails from being made public.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:32:25 UTC No. 16207299

>>16207295
The decline in what, exactly? Temperature? It doesn't say temperature in the pdf.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:40:28 UTC No. 16207308

>>16207299

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:42:32 UTC No. 16207310

>>16207308
>I have no response: the post

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:50:07 UTC No. 16207321

>>16205620
Hi, actual Earth scientist here. This is such bullshit it's laughable that anyone could possibly fall for it.

1. Yes, it's jargon. "trick" has been used in science papers going back decades as an action performed to get a result. It is not in any way a reference to deception. Scientists do not start a paper claiming that they're about to deceive you. It's jargon. This has been explained repeatedly and for some reason you low IQ fools can't get it in your brain.
2. The "hide the decline" email was about Tree Ring data. The problem with Tree Rings is they're accurate until around the 20th century as climate proxies when air pollution from industrialization begins to affect tree ring growth which means you can only use tree ring data until the start of the Industrial Revolution. Otherwise tree ring data in the 20th century would show the globe is getting colder, which is obviously false. The email was about making sure not to publish misleading information by using Tree Ring data as a climate proxy past the Industrial Revolution.
3. You have no other emails to prove a conspiracy. None. Thousands of email and all deniers got out of it was 2 misunderstood emails which can be easily explained. This is why an international team of experts concluded no conspiracy existed after searching through all the emails. The only thing you got out of it was a statement by the IPCC warning scientists to be careful about misleading information in their emails.
4. Earth receives 340 watts per square meter of energy from the Sun average. It receives 0.09 watts per square meter from geothermal energy. The sun's total output is 4,000 times more energy than we receive from geothermal energy. The amount of energy from cosmic rays is negligible even compared to geothermal or about 0.0001 watts per square meter, effectively 3.5 million times less energy than solar radiation.

If your argument is that cosmic rays somehow heat or cool the Earth please explain how. It is batshit stupid

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 05:54:44 UTC No. 16207325

>>16207310
Am I supposed to read these few pages for you and answer your questions? Is the pdf too complicated for you?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 06:01:47 UTC No. 16207330

>>16207321
Thank you for reaching out to me about your DEI science skills. Here is a quick link about the batshit stupid relationship between cosmic rays and cloud formation from international retards at CERN.
https://public-archive.web.cern.ch/en/research/CLOUD-en.html

No, not going to look up the papers for you. Maybe you could put your DEI science skills to work and read up a little before embarrassing yourself again.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 06:06:12 UTC No. 16207332

>>16207330
Ah, you didn't read or didn't understand that paper.

Here's your reply about how dumb you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 06:20:15 UTC No. 16207343

>>16207321
>Hi, actual Earth scientist here.
Here is a link to a youtube video which shows my advanced science skills.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 06:21:35 UTC No. 16207346

>>16207343
Great, it explains why >>16207330
is wrong. Why should I be expected to repeat it?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 06:32:05 UTC No. 16207355

>>16207346
You post a link to a retarded video about a paper, but as a DEI scientist you can't even find the paper and post a link to it. So I will do it for you because you are too stupid.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10343
I do not have access to the full paper, maybe some anon (not a retard like you) has access and can post it. The key figure was not included in the original article, they were not allowed to include. When the paper was published you could find a link on the CERN website to access the key figure, but not from the Nature website.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 07:20:34 UTC No. 16207417

What's science ever done for me

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 12:55:19 UTC No. 16207734

>>16205620
>increased cosmic ray flux and more clouds/cooler temps.
You can read that in "the manic sun", book of 90ties last century. The fraud is unbelievable, the guilt not even wiped by seppuku. They have lie harder every day. Covid, Wars aso.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:54:34 UTC No. 16207821

>>16207291
>to get the results they were paid to get
Was that proven so in court or something? I mean, that's a bold claim.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:56:34 UTC No. 16207824

>>16207291
>Critics claimed the emails showed climate scientists manipulating data and conspiring to suppress dissenting views on climate change. Multiple independent investigations followed, including by the UK House of Commons, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation. These investigations found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, concluding that while the scientists could have been more transparent, their fundamental research and conclusions on climate change remained valid.

I mean... What do you have to backup your claims?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:01:40 UTC No. 16207991

>>16207824
>What do you have to backup your claims?
Well, that would be the emails from the people committing the fraud. Strange how the organizations committing the fraud are the ones saying they investigated the fraud and found no fraud.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:24:34 UTC No. 16208015

>>16207991
So all mainstream scientists and organizations are part of an organized conspiracy to promote climate change as fact?

Yeah ok. I think the fact that it's been 14 years and nothing at all came about from "climategate" shows its a nothingburger.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:25:20 UTC No. 16208016

>>16207991
careful, don't wrinkle that tinfoil too much. It also kinda cooks your brain; it's showing

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:08:32 UTC No. 16208216

>>16208015
>I think the fact that it's been 14 years and nothing at all came about from "climategate"
Aktually it showed reality - all the fear mongering of all the sea ice melting, global warming drowning polar bears, coastal cities flooded never happened, so I guess all the global warming climate "science" was wrong after all. I don't blame you for being so simple minded and inexperienced in the ways of fraudulent work prducts from organizations. You have to see it to understand how it works. You only need a few in the right places at a large organization to control the money and propaganda - that is how government and business works. A small group of people can conspire to manipulate emissions test at Mercedes Benz, or Ford, that affect millions of vehicles sold. Does that mean every single employee at MB or Ford had to be in on it? No stupid, of course not. Same with any organization. If you never ran an organization, if you never participated in budget meetings (not for your local coffe group at the office but for the entire organization), dealt with media, politicians, NGOs, universities, you will have no idea how organizations (all types) are run and controlled by a few who decide the narrative, direction, budget, promotions, expendatures. One political appointment can change entirely the course of an organization and undo all the work that was previously done. Its that simple,

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:12:21 UTC No. 16208309

>>16208216
>Aktually it showed reality - all the fear mongering of all the sea ice melting, global warming drowning polar bears, coastal cities flooded never happened
Nobody related to climategate in any way has ever made any claims remotely similar to this. You get your world view from Facebook and cartoons.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 02:08:50 UTC No. 16208944

>>16208309
>made any claims remotely similar to this
they were providing the fake "science" as the foundation for Al Gore and others to push global warming emission control and tax agenda. I like cartoons but do not facebook, mysapce, nor tweeter. I have been following this nonsense since about 1990 and thought there was something to it until about 2009 ish. Climategate was not the only example of fake science being revealed. The articles are still available to find, but it is getting much more difficult to find and freely download them. Many of the scientific papers are behind paywalls now, this was not the case in the 90s and early 2000s. I understand there are generations of new college grads that have been indoctrinated into the global warming scam. They believe what they were told and have no ability to read, think, or reason for themselves. For years now many 'scientific' papers have been retracted and many 'experts' are being found out to be frauds. If you have money you buy all the experts you want who will say anything your want as long as the money keeps flowing. You are a science zombie to just accepts the main stream narrative with no ability to think for yourself. But that is your problem. Here is an example of highly educated experts stating nicotine is not addictive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08
Why would they say that if was not true?
Go back to CNN and MSNBC to learn what you think today.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 02:32:20 UTC No. 16208980

>>16208944
Literal seething boomer lmao