Man Made Climate Change Proved To Be A Hoax As Hackers Expose Climategate: The Final Nail In The Coffin Of Global Warming?
“exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit”
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.
 |
|
A step in the right direction but unfortunately the whole “climate change/Green products/alternative energy” scam is bigger than them. I hope it sweeps the scientific communities like a tsunami. If it does, it pulls the rug out from under Algore and friends, but he has no problem with making new shit up.
They can always play the “Plausible Denial” card tho and blame it on bad data collected by others!
Thus adding one more layer of fraud or in other terms, digging a deeper grave for themselves.
Don’t know how long it will stay up as a mad dash is being made to kill all source, but here are the actual docs:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T
There are much more than emails in here. I think this is a much bigger story than most think at the moment. As more of what’s in this zip gets made public I think some may end up charged for fraud.
Musing is all…
Just downloaded it.
God bless you.
It’s a huge story,one that like all the rest will be swept under the carpet while everyone is focused on health care.Health care to the enemy is just a beach head.Cap and trade will be a much bigger campaign with (planned) devastating results.When that rolls through the Politburo on the Potomac,amnesty will be a walk in the park Kazanski !
Sorry,but I don’t see anything comming to light out of this.I pray I’m wrong.
Keep yer pitch forks sharp !
Oh this is even juicier than I had hoped. These butt clowns were conspiring to circumvent FOIA requests:
When [Professor Phil] Jones is really forced to the point of handing over his data, he considers ways to make checking it more difficult or annoying:
“Options appear to be:
Send them the data
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.
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.”
But Jones figures a way out:
At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, he writes:
“Mike, Ray, Caspar,
A couple of things – don’t pass on either…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this…
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones”
More from Don’t-Disclose Phil, who seems to have a like-minded acolyte in Melbourne’s own Bureau of Meterology warmist David Jones:
Email 1182255717.txt
“Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit
.2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil“
If chit doesn’t hit the fan we had better make sure to start slinging it ourselves!
ML
see postings about this at wattsupwiththat.com
Cap and tax may still not be defeated, they bribed 60 to vote on the health bill debacle. they can do it again.
these people will not stop at health care. they are going to continue to shove this down the throats of all americans. my pitchforks are sharp and my mind is clear. the time is now to turn the tables.
Most people will never see this story. I’ve been posting the Washington Times link on FaceBook and places. The drive by news media will try and avoid this story. Fox News was talking about it.
AGW being a potential or (in the case of Al Gore) actual cash cow, ostensibly generating new “earth friendly” industries at the expense of the big ol’ dirty oil and coal companies, it’s no wonder some climate researchers act as if they have a dog the fight. If AGW were an actual serious phenomenon of emergency proportions, we in the United States would be fast-tracking nuclear power plant and hydroelectric dam construction.
But no new plants are being built (Yucca Mountain has been declared dead by the Obamessiah) and we’ve been knocking down dams while China is building them. It’s well known that alternative energy production methods are nowhere close to replacing fossil fuels yet the singing of the alternative energy choir continues unabated.
A reasonable person might question the motivations of the AGW crowd.
A reasonable answer might be that the AGW crowd doesn’t believe in AGW themselves, they just want YOU to believe, so as to maximize their standing before the politicians they seek to influence. Those politicians can then increase the considerable power they already have over our daily lives, making a few bucks in the process. A fraction of that money is then used to continue funding researchers who prop up the whole scheme. Politicians continually seek to provide solutions for problems non-existent or beyond their control. It’s the rest of us who are firmly within their grasp, and those who squirm risk having their life squeezed out. Why liberal-minded people fall prey time and time again to those power-seekers espousing Utopian ideals is beyond me. Perhaps their belief in the perfectibility of Man requires a bit of amnesia.
The lame stream news media will not report this. Truth doesnt fit their agenda.
I just heard on Rush’s show today that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is sueing NASA for violation of the FOI Act in that they conspired with the CRU in the UK to commit fraud. The MSM can ignore this all they want, but they can’t ingnore the LAW!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The Libtard media is still a very powerful propaganda machine for the left and they will do what ever it takes to make this go away.