Hacker breaks in and releases 61 megabytes of confidential files that prove global warming scientists are pulling our legs!
Oath Keeper
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 CRU) and
released 61 megabytes 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 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.
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”
- 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. 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 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 –
which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for
example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO
OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also,
thank heaven, 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 to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to
report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the
internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s
credibility from which it is never likely to recover.
from:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/