Hackers leak damning emails from GW scientists
11-21-2009, 08:34 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 175
Car Info: Toyota pickup, Tuono, '62 Mini
Hackers leak damning emails from GW scientists
Anyone else see this?
"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
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."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/
Definitive proof of nothing, but it sure doesn't look good.
"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
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."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/
Definitive proof of nothing, but it sure doesn't look good.
11-21-2009, 10:08 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: in Minneapolis,MN soon
Posts: 119
Car Info: a rental car and then a scooter
I don't know if global warming is natural or caused by pollution. All I know is that our consumer economy is ****ed up and goes against the laws of nature and nature is gonna bite back our *** sooner or later. We keep using resources that are limited.
11-22-2009, 12:49 AM
#6
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 322
Car Info: LGT STI
I dont care if its called global warming or global climate change, all I care about is that people try to be less wasteful and not so much just consumers of everything. What ever motivates them to do so (global warming or manbearpig) is fine by me.
*steps down from soap box*
*steps down from soap box*
11-22-2009, 05:45 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Palo Alto,CA
Posts: 230
Car Info: 2004 STi,sold.
I've been studying AGW since the 1980s. It is an utter hoax. There is nothing happening with the climate that hasn't happened many,many times before in the Earth's 4.6-billion-year history.
11-22-2009, 09:55 AM
#9
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Leg Humper
Posts: 2,504
Car Info: '03 WRX wagon, faster than walkin'
Real data:
1. Some fraction of a one degree rise in temperature since 1950 is attributable to man.
2. Nature outputs around 25-30 TIMES more carbon dioxide per year than all of humanity.
This means that humankind has very little influence on global warming overall.
I have never seen any real evidence of global warming being especially human caused...I have seen a number of documentaries, movies etc., but none of them have any hard data pointing to man. They try and infer it is man that is primary cause, but it's really nature.
The news of suppression and manipulation of data by the global warming alarmists is not news to anyone who has looked. I'm not saying the earth isn't slightly warmer, it is, about 1 degree since 1950, but it looks like its much more a natural occurrence than human created.
There are human created issues though, large pockets of chlorofluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere may be contributing to thinning ozone, or other issues that nobody has even considered - these are not naturally occurring.
The most dangerous human caused problem, IMHO, is overpopulation by humanity, that's one that we are the root cause of, and CAN do something about.
Environmental pollution from coal, I believe, is by far the largest risk in the world today:
1. The number one source of Mercury in fish is coal.
2. The number one toxic source of particulate air pollution is coal (both by burning and transportation of coal).
3. The number one source of hard radiation that comes into contact with living beings, human and animal is coal.
Coal is VERY toxic and should not be burned for power or heat, anywhere in the world. If coal is transported, it should be done in closed cars that do not spew coal dust over the countryside.
Sorry I can't help it, if the environmentalists really cared about the environment, they would do something about coal. Nothing I have seen them react to since 1975ish has been very productive in improving the environment, they are mostly trying to take control via legal reforms, not improve the ecosphere but gain political power for themselves...this aids nobody but themselves.
1. Some fraction of a one degree rise in temperature since 1950 is attributable to man.
2. Nature outputs around 25-30 TIMES more carbon dioxide per year than all of humanity.
This means that humankind has very little influence on global warming overall.
I have never seen any real evidence of global warming being especially human caused...I have seen a number of documentaries, movies etc., but none of them have any hard data pointing to man. They try and infer it is man that is primary cause, but it's really nature.
The news of suppression and manipulation of data by the global warming alarmists is not news to anyone who has looked. I'm not saying the earth isn't slightly warmer, it is, about 1 degree since 1950, but it looks like its much more a natural occurrence than human created.
There are human created issues though, large pockets of chlorofluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere may be contributing to thinning ozone, or other issues that nobody has even considered - these are not naturally occurring.
The most dangerous human caused problem, IMHO, is overpopulation by humanity, that's one that we are the root cause of, and CAN do something about.
Environmental pollution from coal, I believe, is by far the largest risk in the world today:
1. The number one source of Mercury in fish is coal.
2. The number one toxic source of particulate air pollution is coal (both by burning and transportation of coal).
3. The number one source of hard radiation that comes into contact with living beings, human and animal is coal.
Coal is VERY toxic and should not be burned for power or heat, anywhere in the world. If coal is transported, it should be done in closed cars that do not spew coal dust over the countryside.
Sorry I can't help it, if the environmentalists really cared about the environment, they would do something about coal. Nothing I have seen them react to since 1975ish has been very productive in improving the environment, they are mostly trying to take control via legal reforms, not improve the ecosphere but gain political power for themselves...this aids nobody but themselves.
Last edited by AntiochCali; 11-22-2009 at 09:58 AM.
11-22-2009, 11:18 AM
#12
Real data:
1. Some fraction of a one degree rise in temperature since 1950 is attributable to man.
2. Nature outputs around 25-30 TIMES more carbon dioxide per year than all of humanity.
This means that humankind has very little influence on global warming overall.
I have never seen any real evidence of global warming being especially human caused...I have seen a number of documentaries, movies etc., but none of them have any hard data pointing to man. They try and infer it is man that is primary cause, but it's really nature.
The news of suppression and manipulation of data by the global warming alarmists is not news to anyone who has looked. I'm not saying the earth isn't slightly warmer, it is, about 1 degree since 1950, but it looks like its much more a natural occurrence than human created.
There are human created issues though, large pockets of chlorofluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere may be contributing to thinning ozone, or other issues that nobody has even considered - these are not naturally occurring.
The most dangerous human caused problem, IMHO, is overpopulation by humanity, that's one that we are the root cause of, and CAN do something about.
Environmental pollution from coal, I believe, is by far the largest risk in the world today:
1. The number one source of Mercury in fish is coal.
2. The number one toxic source of particulate air pollution is coal (both by burning and transportation of coal).
3. The number one source of hard radiation that comes into contact with living beings, human and animal is coal.
Coal is VERY toxic and should not be burned for power or heat, anywhere in the world. If coal is transported, it should be done in closed cars that do not spew coal dust over the countryside.
Sorry I can't help it, if the environmentalists really cared about the environment, they would do something about coal. Nothing I have seen them react to since 1975ish has been very productive in improving the environment, they are mostly trying to take control via legal reforms, not improve the ecosphere but gain political power for themselves...this aids nobody but themselves.
1. Some fraction of a one degree rise in temperature since 1950 is attributable to man.
2. Nature outputs around 25-30 TIMES more carbon dioxide per year than all of humanity.
This means that humankind has very little influence on global warming overall.
I have never seen any real evidence of global warming being especially human caused...I have seen a number of documentaries, movies etc., but none of them have any hard data pointing to man. They try and infer it is man that is primary cause, but it's really nature.
The news of suppression and manipulation of data by the global warming alarmists is not news to anyone who has looked. I'm not saying the earth isn't slightly warmer, it is, about 1 degree since 1950, but it looks like its much more a natural occurrence than human created.
There are human created issues though, large pockets of chlorofluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere may be contributing to thinning ozone, or other issues that nobody has even considered - these are not naturally occurring.
The most dangerous human caused problem, IMHO, is overpopulation by humanity, that's one that we are the root cause of, and CAN do something about.
Environmental pollution from coal, I believe, is by far the largest risk in the world today:
1. The number one source of Mercury in fish is coal.
2. The number one toxic source of particulate air pollution is coal (both by burning and transportation of coal).
3. The number one source of hard radiation that comes into contact with living beings, human and animal is coal.
Coal is VERY toxic and should not be burned for power or heat, anywhere in the world. If coal is transported, it should be done in closed cars that do not spew coal dust over the countryside.
Sorry I can't help it, if the environmentalists really cared about the environment, they would do something about coal. Nothing I have seen them react to since 1975ish has been very productive in improving the environment, they are mostly trying to take control via legal reforms, not improve the ecosphere but gain political power for themselves...this aids nobody but themselves.
Data sources plz
11-22-2009, 11:53 AM
#14
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
I have a coworker that thinks the poles are going to switch (this has happened many many many many times in the Earth's history). I informed him he was right about that, but wrong that the Earth is going to stop spinning when it does happen. He honestly believes that the Earth is going to grind to a halt.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing
Oh yeah, I didn't read the whole article in the first post. Poor grammar and ManBearPig take away any credibility that article began with. I mean, I know they are British, but still...
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing
Oh yeah, I didn't read the whole article in the first post. Poor grammar and ManBearPig take away any credibility that article began with. I mean, I know they are British, but still...
Last edited by VRT MBasile; 11-22-2009 at 11:55 AM.
11-22-2009, 12:13 PM
#15
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 322
Car Info: LGT STI
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
George Carlin - Saving the Planet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw