The Global Warming Scandal Of The Century As Hacked E-Mails Reveal Global-Warming Fraud With Top Climate Scientists Discussing Hiding Contrary Data, Marginalizing Dissenters

 

The global warming scandal of the century

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 20, 2009 12:23 PM

 


Anthony Watts of Watt’s Up With That? and Stephen McIntrye of Climate Audit broke the story this morning of the hacking break-in at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU).


BBC confirms:

 

The e-mail system of one of the world’s leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.


E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.


A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.


An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.


“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,” the spokesman stated.


“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.


“This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.


“We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry.”


Researchers at CRU, one of the world’s leading research bodies on natural and human-induced climate change, played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, which is considered to be the most authoritative report of its kind.

 

First things first: The alleged hackers need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


That said: The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home.


Helpful rundowns of all the latest developments at Hot Air, Shout First, Andrew Bolt, and from James Delingpole at the Telegraph, who sums up some of the most damning e-mails:

 

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:


Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.


One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:


“In an odd way this is cheering news.”


But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.


Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:


Manipulation of evidence:


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.


Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:


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.


Suppression of evidence:


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.


Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:


Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.


Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):


……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….


And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority…

 

The Chicago Way is the Global Warming Mob Way.


Stay tuned.

 
 
 
 
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
WorldNetDaily
Hacked e-mails reveal

global-warming fraud?

Top climate scientists discuss hiding
contrary data, marginalizing dissenters

--WND

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud?
Top climate scientists discuss hiding contrary data, marginalizing dissenters


Posted: November 20, 2009
11:27 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily


University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit

 

Officials at a key global warming research center in the United Kingdom have authenticated a series of e-mails and other documents apparently taken from their computer system by a hacker, but they cannot explain what scientists in internal exchanges meant by references to a "trick" that would "hide the decline" of global temperatures nor by instructions to delete contrary data.


Author James Delingpole writes in a London Telegraph column the most damaging revelations indicate climate-change scientists may have "manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause."


According to the Australian Investigate magazine, the 62 megabyte Zip file with documents, e-mail exchanges and other information from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit apparently was posted by an unidentified hacker on a Russian web server.


One e-mail said: "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 (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."


Another expressed internal doubts: "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."


Further, an e-mail exchange suggested the suppression of information: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis."


"And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority."


He cites an e-mail: "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature.' Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board …What do others think?"


Myron Ebell, of the GlobalWarming.org website where "cooler heads prevail," said the e-mails are "shocking."


"Its kind of interesting to learn that petty politics seems to be more prevalent in the scientific community than in the political community," he said.


The documents, he said, "raise a huge number of questions about the integrity of a lot of people in the alarmist community.


"What I've seen there is a very strong effort to manage the issue by scientists and not as a scientific issues. It's very improper," he said. " One of the criticisms is that we need scientists to be scientist, and policy can be handled in public debate."


Delingpole observes the world "is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called 'skeptical' view is now also the majority view."


Phil Jones, head of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, confirmed to Investigate magazine the documents appeared authentic.


"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 e-mails," he said.


"It's completely illegal for somebody to hack into our system," he told the magazine
But Jones denied there was any attempt to mislead or conceal.


"They're talking about proxy data going further back in time, a thousand years, and it's just about how you add on the last few years, because when you get proxy data you sample things like tree rings and ice cores, and they don't always have the last few years," he said.


Jones said he could not recall what he meant when he wrote about a plan to "hide the decline."


In the e-mail, dated 10 years ago, Jones wrote: "Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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 [sic] from1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers, Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit."


The documents also included a message dated last month from Kevin Trenberth to Michal Mann about the "U-turn on climate" by Britain's BBC News.


"Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)."


Despite the advocacy of a financially vested former vice president, Al Gore, and others, public opinion about whether mankind is causing an ultimately catastrophic rise in global temperatures is shifting.


U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming."


The Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered, has steadily grown without any special effort or campaign.


But in the last few years, and especially because of the release of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," the campaign has been reinvigorated.


"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," project spokesman and founder Art Robinson has told WND.


Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.


Paul cited the petition results in his statement to Congress.


"Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth – not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas," Paul said. "They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters."


The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."


Robinson has warned of serious political and economic consequencesof assuming "global warming" results from mankind's actions.


"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made.

Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he told WND.


Warned Paul, "Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people – the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people – including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise – including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.


"While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people's freedom," Paul said.

 
 
GOP's Inhofe 'vindicated' on global warming
Senator describes 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people'
--Tulsa World

Inhofe declares victory in speech on global warming


 
Sen. Jim Inhofe

 
By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau

Published: 11/18/2009  9:23 PM
Last Modified: 11/18/2009  9:23 PM

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, perhaps Congress’ most vocal skeptic of man-made global warming, essentially declared victory Wednesday in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor.


“I proudly declare 2009 as the ‘Year of the Skeptic,’ the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard,’’ the Oklahoma Republican said.

 

“Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked.’’

Inhofe recalled his own 2003 remarks in which he said much of the debate over global warming was predicated on fear rather than science.

Alarmists warned of a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, economic dislocations, droughts and mosquito-borne diseases, he said.

Inhofe also recalled his most famous comment in which he suggested that man-made global warming would turn out to be “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

“Today, I have been vindicated,’’ he said.

Inhofe pointed to the upcoming international conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, which previously was viewed as a chance for nations to make some kind of a binding agreement on greenhouse gases.

White House aides said Sunday that a fully binding legal agreement would be put off until a December 2010 meeting in Mexico City, The Associated Press reported.

Inhofe said Wednesday that “the reality, of course, is that Copenhagen will be a disaster.’’

Inhofe is the top Republican on the Senate Environment and

 

Public Works Committee. He recently helped lead a Republican boycott of that panel’s efforts to act on a major climate change bill.


Democrats were forced to vote the measure out of committee without amendments, and an effort already is under way to come up with a different bill.

 

That measure now is not expected to be taken up in the Senate until next year.

 

 

 

McCain slams 'horrendous' climate-change bill
Senator says close friends Graham, Lieberman 'going nowhere' with legislation
--Politico

 

 

 


 
Climategate: 'Greatest scandal in modern science'...

 

Climategate: 'Greatest scandal in modern science'...

 

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

 

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

 

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

 

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

 

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.

 

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

 

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.

 

Suppression of evidence:

 

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.

 

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

 

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

 

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

 

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

 

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

 

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”


“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors.

 

The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

 

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause.

This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.


Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.


But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.


Call for Congressional investigation...

 

Blogs - Blogs

Listen: Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Washington Times Americas Morning Show

November 23, 2009

 

Posted by Matt Dempsey matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov

Note: This post will be updated throughout the day.

Update: The Hill: Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research

Update: Inhofe Talks with Hot Air's Ed Morrissey about "ClimateGate"

IBD Editorial: The Day Global Warming Stood Still

Link to 2005 Inhofe Senate Floor Speech: "Today, I will discuss something else – scientific integrity and how to improve it. Specifically, I will discuss the systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective scientific assessment in the world on the subject of climate change – the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. I will conclude with a series of recommendations as to the minimum changes the IPCC must make if it is to restore its credibility."

 

Listen: Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate

Interview on Washington Times America's Morning Show

 

 

Transcript From Inhofe Radio Interview

 

Monday, November 23, 2009

Senator Inhofe: This is a huge issue and of course we have the Gitmo issue and we have the, of course, cap-and-trade is now taking a new turn.  Jed, if I could…

Jed Babbin: Yeah.

Senator Inhofe: Would you let me make one sentence?

Jed Babbin: Please.

Senator Inhofe: This is out of a speech that I made, Melanie, back on the floor of the Senate, and it was repeated, John Gizzi picked it up and put it in Human Events. This was 4 years ago, in talking about the science, cooking the science. I said I would discuss the “systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by which an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective science assessment in the world on the subject of climate change, the United Nations IPCC.”  Now that was four years ago; so we knew they were cooking the science back then, and you’ve been talking about the, you know, what’s happened recently with the bloggers coming up with what they did, what they…

Jed Babbin: Let me interrupt you there Senator, because I think that’s a really important point.  Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven’t followed that story, what Senator Inhofe’s talking about, in Britain, a blogger got into some of the official government records about climate change and how the measurements were being taken to show…

Melanie Morgan: And the politics behind it.

Jed Babbin: And the – well but they were basically saying, “Oh yea, hey, let’s make it look like Jim so-and-so did that, and let’s help him cook the books, and let’s change the data…”

Melanie Morgan: And “let’s beat up those who don’t agree with us.”

Jed Babbin: Yea, but it’s all a huge fraud! I mean, Senator, am I exaggerating?

Senator Inhofe: No you’re not.  If you remember, mine was the hoax statement, and that was, what, five years ago I guess.

Jed Babbin: Well, we ought to give you a big pat on the back for being …

Melanie Morgan: Yea, you deserve an anatta boy, and now you are finally being vindicated.

Senator Inhofe: Well, on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I’m the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation.  ‘Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.

Melanie Morgan: So what will you be calling for an investigation of?

Senator Inhofe: On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not. 

Jed Babbin: Should somebody stop further spending on this until we get this investigation, Senator?

Senator Inhofe: Well, I don’t know how you do that, though, ‘cause we’re not the ones that are calling the shots.  The interesting part of this is it’s happening right before Copenhagen.  And, so, the timing couldn’t be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their time was good.

Melanie Morgan: Well, Senator, thank you very much for coming back and handling a little bit, a tiny little bit of heat from the kitchen.

Senator Inhofe: Okay.

Jed Babbin: Thanks very much Senator.

Senator Inhofe: Thanks, you bet.

Jed Babbin: Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma on the Environment Committee over there, and one of the real fighters.

Melanie Morgan: He certainly is…

 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17177

Pompous advocates of global warming hysteria, are liars, and/or gullable fools

Knocking Down the Global Warming “House of Cards”

 By Jim O'Neill  Tuesday, November 24, 2009

imageToday we’re seeing that climate change is about more than a few unseasonably mild winters or hot summers. It’s about the chain of natural catastrophes and devastating weather patterns that global warming is beginning to set off around the world…the frequency and intensity of which are breaking records thousands of years old.—Barack Hussein Obama

What does the recent release of documents surrounding “Climategate” mean?  It means that the “deniers” who have been claiming that the global warming Chicken Littles are wrong—are right. 

It means that the pompous advocates of global warming hysteria, are liars, and/or gullable fools. 

The increasingly irrelevant LSM (Lame Stream Media) are in full “damage control” mode.  They are doing an admirable job of trying to ignore the stink, but even the New York Times has had to break down, and say something.

They begin an article on the subject by noting that “Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics….” 

“Causing a stir among global warming skeptics.”  As if only politically incorrect “deniers,” would bother to be interested in such things—the rest of you sheeple can go back to grazing.

The “documents hacked from a computer server at a (ho-hum) British University,” refer to files downloaded from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia, England

Why are these files important?

Because the CRU has supplied much of the data that the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has based its erroneous conclusions on.  And it is largely the IPCC’s conclusions, that Al Gore has used to justify his claims about global warming.  And it is Al Gore’s claims about global warming, that have so effectively fueled the ongoing Marxist/Communist attempt to take over the world under the auspices of the UN. 

That’s why.

The emails and files downloaded from the CRU, show that there has been a blatant, long-term effort to, in Dr. Tim Ball’s words, “pervert science in the service of social and political causes.” 

The “scientists” at the East Anglia CRU, are not valid scientists at all.  They are political ideologues, who distorted and manipulated data, withheld information, and knowingly promoted false findings—in collusion with others, outside of the CRU.  All of them are wolves in (new) sheep’s clothing.

Fraudulent global warming hysteria

Because of the billions of dollars that taxpayers worldwide have been bilked for, due to the fraudulent global warming hysteria, it seems to me that somebody (or several somebodys) ought to be going to jail.

The IPCC is also directly related to the UN’s FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change).

According to Wikipedia, “A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UNFCCC, an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change.”

UN’s Agenda 21, and its “sustainable development” doctrines, that are responsible for the plight of the farmers in California

In 1992, at the UN’s “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, President Bush Sr. signed the U.S. on board for the FCCC treaty.  This has led directly to the UN’s Agenda 21 protocols being implemented throughout America’s government—top to bottom.

It is the UN’s Agenda 21, and its “sustainable development” doctrines, that are responsible for the plight of the farmers in California, and the fishermen along the Gulf Coast, among many other damaging perversions of common sense. 

Let me say that I am all for being ecologically responsible.  That we should be good stewards of the planet, is something that I take as a given.  But I do not confuse Agenda 21, with good stewardship of “spaceship earth.”

Agenda 21 is designed to wipe out America’s middle-class, cripple our food producing capacity, control our waterways, minimize our industrial output, diminish our energy grid, and take away our freedom.  Agenda 21 has been at work for some time, and is nearing its final stages of completion.

When I say that Agenda 21 is designed to wipe out America’s middle-class and take away our freedom, I mean that almost all Americans will be (by our current standards) poor, and controlled by a planetary police state, run by a small, wealthy, Global Elite.

Oh it’s coming, trust me.  Been enjoying the force-feeding of Obama-Care down America’s throat?  Well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Don’t let these lying weasels slink away from the revelations coming out of the CRU.  Don’t let them downplay this scandal, or slip away into “climate change,” or some other vague, vaporous generality. 

We need to hold their feet to the fire on this one.  We need to hit them with the truth.  Hit them in earnest, hit them hard, and hit them often. 

The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, conservative talk radio, and blogs, need to wake up any Americans who are still unaware of what’s barreling down on us.

By unceasingly shining the light of truth on the lies coming out of the East Anglia CRU—with a bit of luck, and God’s grace, the whole evil “house of cards” may well come tumbling down.

Laus Deo.

P.S. How’s that swine flu “world-wide pandemic,” “national emergency” going?

 

 

 


Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers...

 
 
When Fanatical Agendas Obliterate Science
 
Climate Emails Stoke Debate: Scientists’ Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming (Wall Street Journal, November 23, 2009)


Thomas E. Brewton


The Wall Street Journal article notes:

 

Representatives of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a large professional organization, expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.

 

One would expect true scientists to be more concerned with pursuit of the truth than with foreclosing questions about an hypothesis.  As it stands, the greenhouse-gas hypothesis is no more than a religious dogma proclaimed from closed chambers.  Liberal-progressives treat all questions or challenges to it as heresy.


Once upon a time, scientists believed that the scientific process requires testing hypotheses about the physical world to assess their validity.


All scientific advancement starts with the intuition of an inquirer.  That intuition must first be tested by experiments that either support the hypothesis or question its validity.  If the hypothesis appears at first to be correct, true scientists publish their findings, along with the experimental data that appears to support those findings.  The worldwide scientific community should than be free, first, to attempt to replicate the experiment and its conclusion, then to subject the hypothesis to other experiments and to challenge validity of the hypothesis with other data that appear to contradict it.


The greenhouse-gas hypothesis differs from this scientific pattern in significant, fatal respects.  It is fanatical dogmatism, not science.


First, there is no way to subject its conclusions to scientific experiment.  Doubters are told to accept blindly the conclusions of self-interested people like Al Gore, who assure us that the often unavailable data support their hypothesis. 

 

Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. (President-elect Barack Obama, November 18, 2008, in Los Angeles at the opening session of the Global Climate Summit.)

 

With regard to whether, as President Obama asserts, “...the facts are clear,” proponents of the greenhouse-gas hypothesis have frequently refused to make available the data that they claim support their hypothesis.


Second, major components of the data claimed to support the greenhouse-gas hypothesis - notably the hockey-stick graph purporting to show a sharp upward jump in world temperatures in recent decades - have been revealed as either highly selective use of statistics or outright fraud.  Perpetrators of the hockey-stick fraud, we now know from examining their data, deliberately selected only a few of the hundreds of tree ring data samples from their particular location, because the vast bulk of the samples contradicted the hockey-stick fraud.  Extensive data from multiple sources reveal that past cyclical periods of global warming started before build-up of CO2, which appears to be a result, not a cause of global warming.  Claims that the earth has been warming steadily since 1979, the UN’s selected starting point, are flatly contradicted by observations from weather balloons and from satellites. 


Global-warming adherents assert that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period, both observed and recorded at the time, are fictions.  They say that world temperatures were relatively constant at those times and that temperatures have suddenly, within recent decades, soared to literally unprecedented heights.  On the one hand, we are told not to believe records of actual temperatures and eye-witness accounts of the advance of glaciers that overran mountain villages.  On the other, we are expected to place our unquestioning faith in an unprovable hypothesis that rests entirely upon multiple computer models, which disagree with each other.


Third, all of the horrific predictions of earthly devastation popularized by Al Gore are based entirely upon ad hoc assumptions embodied in computer models.  There are at least 20 such models, which contradict each other in important respects.  Even the UN now admits that temperatures around the earth have been declining, not continuing to warm, for the past decade. 


Moreover, even the most extreme greenhouse-gas fanatics concede that the likely increase in world temperatures from man-made activity, if their predictions ever were to come true, would be inconsequentially small.  The spectacle of converts to the religious dogma of global warming, who claim that their intelligence is the answer to controlling the world’s climate, is like a bedbug approaching an elephant with rape on its mind.


Anyone who has labored to construct computer models, from financial spreadsheets to more complex types, has discovered how easy it is to overlook important relationships among data points or to enter incorrect numbers and incorrect relational formulae.  If it were possible to project the future from past records, you can be assured that there would be many stock market billionaires.  Earth’s climate is akin in complexity to the vast numbers of factors impinging upon stock prices, only more so.  If the one is impossible, assuredly the other is even more impossible.


Third, the central organization bruiting the greenhouse-gas warming hypothesis is, not a scientific group, but the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Professor Richard Lindzen, an MIT meteorologist who served on a Federal government panel evaluating the IPCC climate report, wrote that, in the main body of the report representing the views of scientists, “...there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.”


Why, then, did the mainstream media completely misinterpret the main body of the IPCC report? 
Because mainstream media propagandists (sometimes laughably called investigative reporters) read only the report’s Summary for Policymakers.  Of it, Professor Lindzen wrote, “It represents a consensus of government representatives ... rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.”


And why would UN government representatives deliberately misrepresent the far from unanimous conclusions of scientists?  Because the UN is a proxy for liberal-progressive-socialists’ fervent commitment to a supranational, one-world government.


In sum, the secular religious commitment to the unprovable and contrived dogma of greenhouse-gas global warming is the opposite of science.  Its closest modern parallel is the Soviet Union’s show trials of the 1930s to silence public dissenters and promulgation of daily fiction in Pravda.
 
 

 
 
 

Algore, Scientific Illiterate
Al, rocks don't have a temperature of several million degrees.

 

Al Gore's Science Illiteracy

November 18, 2009 by

Mark Whittington  

 

Mark Whittington 

 

"...'cause The Interior of the Earth is Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees..."

 

Al Gore was on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien recently and was attempting to explain the utility of geothermal energy, which taps the Earth's heat to generate energy. In so doing, former Vice President Gore proved to be an ignoramus.

According to the transcript, as
quoted by Hot Air's Ed Morrissey:

 
 
"It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one.
People think about geothermal energy — when they think about it at all — in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees aces there are these incredibly hot rocks, , and the crust of the earth is hot ..."

The problem is that Al Gore got the temperature of the interior of the Earth wrong by several orders of magnitude. The actual temperature of the Earth's interior is upwards to six thousand degrees Celsius. "Several million degrees" would describe the temperature of the interior of the Sun.

In other words, if Al Gore were right, the Earth would not be a planet but a star.

Usually when a public figure makes the kind of public mistake Al Gore is prone to he is laughed off the public stage by the media and is never seen or heard from again. After all, Dan Quayle, said to be an intelligent person, was ruined because he publicly misspelled "potato."

Instead Al Gore is actually taken serious in certain public policy circles. His books on the environment, filled with falsehoods and questionable assertions, are best sellers. Al Gore is a favorite guest on certain TV talk shows (the ones where they don't ask tough questions) and before Congressional hearings. Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award for Best Documentary.

Al Gore has rather arrogantly announced that "the science is settled" concerning global warming. This is news to actual scientists, who have ridiculed Al Gore's pronouncements as being false and misleading.

Oh, Al Gore has gotten very rich as a purveyor of global warming hysteria, being involved in a number of environmental businesses that rely on belief in environmental crisis to make money.